Journal index

A konfirmációval kapcsolatos református egyházi tanításhoz viszonyítva a köztudatban élő nézetek gyakorta deviánsnak tekinthetők, a szent és profán elemek valamifajta keveredése mindenképp megfigyelhető. A kortárs református teológiai kutatás adósa a közegyháznak a konfirmációval kapcsolatos szent és profán elemekre vonatkozó irányadó, vagy legalább gondolatébresztő értékeléssel. A téma időszerű vonatkozásainak vizsgálatánál fontos módszertani követelmény, hogy az elméleti megközelítés gyakorlati helyzetfelméréshez kapcsolódjon. Az utóbbi kérdőívek által történt Kolozsvár, és a városokhoz viszonyítva hagyományőrző Kalotaszeg 36 egyházközségében. Az alábbi tanulmány nem kínál tökéletes irányba vezető konfirmációreformot, inkább tényfeltáró és vitaindító jellegű.

Nemcsak az 1636-os évnek, hanem a fejedelmi nyomda egész korszakának legnagyobb teljesítménye a Geleji Katona István és a püspöki székben elődje, Keserűi Dajka János által összeállított Öreg graduál volt. A fejedelmi nyomda készletében 1632-től 1636-ig történt gyarapodás (egy már korábban is meglévő nagyméretű betű kurrens betűkkel való kiegészítése, egy további kiemelő típus és két nagyméretű, fából készült fraktúr sorozat) már nyilvánvalóan a nyomda legnagyobb vállalkozásával, az Öreg graduállal hozható összefüggésbe. Ezekkel a nagyobb méretű, jól olvasható betűkkel készültek a Graduál címsorai, egész szövege pedig egy fokozattal kisebb, de még mindig jól olvasható „öregbetűkkel”.

Európa szenved, a 20. század vészterhes örökségét még nem sikerült feldolgoznia. Gyógyulatlan sebek, tabuk, előítéletek, egymásra sütött bélyegek maradtak a háborúk, rendszerváltások nyomán. Az egyének sorsa is hasonló, ráadásul a közösségek, a biztonságadó kötelékek fellazultak, és a sodródásban halmozódnak a összeütközések. A dolgok orvoslásáról addig álmodni sem lehet, ameddig mentalitásváltás nem történik, és ha az egymáshoz történő odafordulás be is következik, szükséges eltanulni a párbeszéd alapszabályait. Mit is jelent a dialógus?

The Missiological [re]Interpretation of Abraham’s Offering, As a Potential Paradigm-Shift in [post]Modern Philosophical and Theological Reasoning. Consideration has to be taken in new view of the striking and in many ways mysterious and scandalous narrative of Abraham’s offering his son, Isaac on the mountain of Moriah. It was with Kierkegaard that this Old Testament story came to the forefront of philosophical investigations. The Danish philosopher marvelled on the obedience of the Patriarch in not even wavering (although certainly accepting the deadly burden of the angst which entails this action) to act without really understanding why Yahweh has asked for such a terrible sacrifice. Abraham is eulogized as the ‘knight of faith’, but Levinas has a different view of the story, more closely of the ‘Kierkegaardian Abraham,’ and as such opts more for a kind of ‘knight of action’ in a responsible undertaking of compassion and empathy toward the Other human being, and of the act of looking into the God-given image of the Other One. Thus he seems to put the emphasis on the second part of the narrative when God’s Angel intervenes and Levinas marvels (and opts) for this second kind of obedience based on a second Word coming from the same Yahweh, which, curiously enough, could not take Abraham by surprise, despite the seemingly contradictory demand of the God of Israel this time. In Levinas we face the embodiment of concern and responsibility as the ultimate ethical demand, when the father looks into the face of his son, and the face of the Other, as that of Abel and tells him: “Thou shalt not kill!” This inherent ‘categoricus imperativus’ reflecting on the human face of the Other is the ethical stage, and Levinas criticised Kierkegaard for replacing this ethical stage illegitimately by the religious one. The uncritically embraced neo-Kantian patterns are still lurking with both philosophers, despite the post-modern claims made especially by Levinas. The story still serves as a paradigm-shift taking place at the borderline of modernity and postmodernity, which of course will survive for long concomitantly in contemporary reasoning and in ongoing moral debates both locally (I am critically evaluating to some extent in this study Tavaszy’s philosophy as well on the matter as it emerged locally), as well as globally. Yet, the interpretation of the ‘akkedah’ of Abraham seems not to be near of completion neither with neo-Kantians and existentialists, nor with theological hermeneutics listed above. The narratives of the Moriah event, as well as the whole Genesis context of it, and beyond, the whole Old Testament-context of the Abrahamic Covenant serves us with a new missiological challenge, as Abraham and successively Israel, and finally the Messiah-Seed plays the role of a ‘missionary priesthood’ in order to bring all the nations under the blessings of salvation promised to Abraham exclusively and fulfilled through him inclusively in the whole world. After twenty centuries of Systematic theology engaging itself exclusively in a dialogue only with Western philosophy, the post-modern age might be in due time kept opened up at last to a different kind of dialogue, such as with missiology. The challenge of a new paradigm-shift emerging out of this dialogue is expected to determine the theology of mission in order to become the very mission of theology itself. That impulse would bring Christian theology and theistic ethics back again to its real and primordial state.

The Life-work Which Reveals the Delusion of Christianity, the Kierkegaardian Criticism of the Church and Christianity. Entropy is a main characteristic of the human world; consequently the Church also has a similar tendency. Criticism is in symbiosis with Christian life. One of the most important critical analysis of Christianity is made by Kierkegaard. To understand his life-work from the point of view of criticism, we have to deal with three important aspects: a) The religious influence in his childhood. His family comes from the Moravian tradition; he had the opportunity to examine the dark side of this tradition as wel. b) His relationship to other personalities belonging to the golden age of Denmark. This period is characterized by the intensive reception of Hegel. Kierkegaard could not agree with the Danish Hegelians, because his consequent subjectivity was in permanent polemics with the objectivity of speculative theology. c) The methodology of Kierkegaard – interpretation. The Danish thinker used two types of communication, the direct and the indirect one. The indirect communication is characteristic for his poetical, aesthetical works. This type of communication has a maieutical character, in this manner the writer helps the reader find the truth, but he never gives formulated definitions. An other characteristic of his works are the use of pseudonym for the name of writers’. Kierkegaard protests against the quoting of this works under his own name, because he personally does not agree whit the opinion of the authors. Kierkegaard’s writings at the beginning include aspects of criticism, but in the last period he mostly attacks Christianity. In 1850 was published his Training in Christianity. In this book we can find the main points of his criticism, but after bishop Mynster’s death in 1854 his criticism becomes the sharpest. The targets of his criticism are: the erroneous Church – concept and the problem of sate Church; the cheap grace; the different sins of clergies; the insufficiency of knowledge for true Christian faith, and the discrepancy between Christian teaching and personal life of religious teachers.