This book examines the religious epistemologies of Søren Kierkegaard, John Henry Newman, and William James in the light of contemporary challenges to religious faith. They defended the right of persons to embrace religious beliefs that are not strictly warranted by empirical evidence and logical argumentation. Faith must not be hampered, they argued, by the demands of reason narrowly conceived. Paul Sands notes, however, important differences in the way each relates faith to reason. Sands examines the religious epistemologies of Kierkegaard, Newman, and James in the context of two "givens" characteristic of early twenty-first century culture, namely, the intellectual hegemony of probabilism and the pluralization of the Western mind.

This project was inspired by years of nurture and ministry in the church upon which the study focuses. With roots going back to the historic African American Church, it offers a window into early growth, the development of crucial theological positions, institutional development within the American Church of the twentieth century, and emerging patterns for worldwide Christianity in the twenty-first century. The struggle within this project is against a background of misunderstanding. Given the pejorative biases in earlier studies against African American Christianity in general, and Holiness-Pentecostalism in particular, a contest is under way for placement within the appropriate taxonomy.

The present work takes up the neglected quest for a theory of ritual and methodology of analysis that recognizes and traces the contours of ritual dynamic structure. The resulting fresh approach provides a controlled framework for interpreting rituals belonging to various cultures and for identifying bases of comparison between them. The first part builds a theory and definition of ritual and a corresponding methodology for analyzing specific rituals in terms of their activities and the meanings attached to those activities. The second part illustrates this methodology and its usefulness for comparative studies by applying it to ceremonies of cult purification in the ancient Near East.

Scholars from various fields of study have long dealt with the relationship between religion and science. This subject has found a particular expression in sociology. Sociologists and other scholars agree that even though religion and science can be seen as separate from each other, there are several commonalities between the two. The common ground between Bellah, Giddens, and Habermas – the meaningful position the Subject has/should have in constructing the social reality – brings to light a transition in the sociological theoretical arena, if we take into account the different theoretical roots of each scholar – Functionalism (Bellah), Positivism (Giddens), and Neo-Kantian (Habermas).

Adrian Fortescue (1874-1923) was recognized as one of England’s foremost authorities on Eastern Christianity and helped to shape the English-speaking world’s understanding of the Eastern Churches. This book is a critical examination of his writings on the subject, analyzing what he said about the Eastern Christian Churches and highlighting his insights into key questions. It focuses on Fortescue’s understanding of the schisms and his thoughts as to how reunion can come about. The book concludes by comparing Fortescue's perspective to later advances in theology and historical scholarship in order to ascertain the long-term accuracy of his writings.

Adrian Fortescue (1874-1923) was recognized as one of England’s foremost authorities on Eastern Christianity and helped to shape the English-speaking world’s understanding of the Eastern Churches. This book is a critical examination of his writings on the subject, analyzing what he said about the Eastern Christian Churches and highlighting his insights into key questions. It focuses on Fortescue’s understanding of the schisms and his thoughts as to how reunion can come about. The book concludes by comparing Fortescue's perspective to later advances in theology and historical scholarship in order to ascertain the long-term accuracy of his writings.

Scholars from various fields of study have long dealt with the relationship between religion and science. This subject has found a particular expression in sociology. Sociologists and other scholars agree that even though religion and science can be seen as separate from each other, there are several commonalities between the two. The common ground between Bellah, Giddens, and Habermas – the meaningful position the Subject has/should have in constructing the social reality – brings to light a transition in the sociological theoretical arena, if we take into account the different theoretical roots of each scholar – Functionalism (Bellah), Positivism (Giddens), and Neo-Kantian (Habermas).

This project was inspired by years of nurture and ministry in the church upon which the study focuses. With roots going back to the historic African American Church, it offers a window into early growth, the development of crucial theological positions, institutional development within the American Church of the twentieth century, and emerging patterns for worldwide Christianity in the twenty-first century. The struggle within this project is against a background of misunderstanding. Given the pejorative biases in earlier studies against African American Christianity in general, and Holiness-Pentecostalism in particular, a contest is under way for placement within the appropriate taxonomy.

Orthodox ecclesiology doctrinally and historically requires that all authority in the church be expressed by the bishop. The unity of authority, based upon the laying on of hands, is the lived expression of the oneness and catholicity of the church. American Orthodoxy, however, does not have such an authority structure, especially on the parish level. This study explores the divergence of practice from doctrine in the American church. The study concludes with a theological discussion of the problematic nature of parish congregationalism in Orthodoxy. It points toward the already-realized conciliarity of supra-parish structures as the paradigm for a reformation of parish authority structures.

This book examines the religious epistemologies of Søren Kierkegaard, John Henry Newman, and William James in the light of contemporary challenges to religious faith. They defended the right of persons to embrace religious beliefs that are not strictly warranted by empirical evidence and logical argumentation. Faith must not be hampered, they argued, by the demands of reason narrowly conceived. Paul Sands notes, however, important differences in the way each relates faith to reason. Sands examines the religious epistemologies of Kierkegaard, Newman, and James in the context of two "givens" characteristic of early twenty-first century culture, namely, the intellectual hegemony of probabilism and the pluralization of the Western mind.

The present work takes up the neglected quest for a theory of ritual and methodology of analysis that recognizes and traces the contours of ritual dynamic structure. The resulting fresh approach provides a controlled framework for interpreting rituals belonging to various cultures and for identifying bases of comparison between them. The first part of ritual dynamic structure builds a theory and definition of ritual and a corresponding methodology for analyzing specific rituals in terms of their activities and the meanings attached to those activities. The second part illustrates this methodology and its usefulness for comparative studies by applying it to ceremonies of cult purification in the ancient Near East.