The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

RAJA YOGA. Raja Yoga is a term that has been used in modern times by Hindu commentators, such as Vivekananda (1863–1902), when referring to the meditative techniques described in the second-century-AD Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Although the term does not appear in Patanjali’s sutras, for these modern commentators Raja Yoga denotes the path of “royal yoga” or the “king of all yoga,” as it constitutes the pinnacle of meditative practice. Some advocates concentrate more attention on the meditative attainments while deemphasizing the bodily postures that many Westerners associate with yoga generally. In Raja Yoga, several techniques are used to distinguish between human awareness and pure consciousness. The goal is to disentangle pure consciousness from human awareness so as to attain yogic liberation from the cycle of rebirth and attachment to the material creation. The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organization is one of several modern neo-Hindu movements that promote Raja Yoga meditation.

Bibliography. M. Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom; S. Strauss, Positioning Yoga: Balancing Acts across Cultures.

P. Johnson

RAMA. Next to Krishna, Rama is the most important Hindu God and the seventh avatar of Vishnu. In Indian religious thought, he is the supreme example of patience, faithfulness, and justice. The epic Ramayana describes his exploits through a gripping adventure story.

See also CHRISTIAN

Bibliography. D. Stein, Essential Reiki.

J. Lyons

REINCARNATION. The traditional understanding of reincarnation in major Eastern religions is outlined below.

Reincarnation in Buddhism. The Buddhist understanding of reincarnation developed in dialogue with Jainism and Hinduism but in many respects differs from the generic concept. In Buddhism, just as in Hinduism, the fundamental problem of human existence is that persons find themselves caught in a recurring cycle of death and rebirth. However, Buddhism rejects the idea of an eternal soul or the belief that there exists an enduring substance in which personal identity is grounded; there is no abiding self in Buddhism. Instead, “persons” are said to be bundles of properties in a state of continual flux. If a person fails to attain liberation during a given life, some of the psychological aggregate will survive the dissolution of the body with which it was previously associated and subsequently be reincarnated in a different body in accordance with the dictates of karma. Human life is filled with suffering, which stems from ignorance concerning the nature of reality (which most people think consists of a multiplicity of concrete objects but actually is undifferentiated Buddha nature) and consequent attachment to things that are impermanent and ultimately unreal. This suffering is then perpetuated by means of such craving for things that exist only in the world of appearances, which in turn results in the failure to achieve enlightenment and consequent reincarnation. The solution to this predicament is following the Noble Eightfold Path, which, if done successfully, will result in nirvana: complete freedom from illusion and detachment from desire, and hence the cessation of all suffering. In Mahayana Buddhism, the attempt to escape reincarnation involves many ritual practices and efforts to help other sentient beings attain liberation. Between reincarnations “mind streams” experience an intermediate state known as bardo. Theravada Buddhism rejects the concept of bardo and asserts that reincarnation can be avoided primarily by means of a rigorous, self-directed program of meditation and study. At the time of death, the “mind stream” is immediately reincarnated.

Reincarnation in the Hindu Tradition. The Hindu doctrine of reincarnation cannot be adequately understood apart from the broader worldview in which it plays a role. In all of Hinduism’s various forms, the fundamental problem faced by human beings is that the soul is trapped in an ongoing cycle of death and rebirth (samsara). The soul or self (Atman) is imperishable and in some sense is identical to Brahma, persisting beyond the death of the body in which it is presently incarnated. Unless the cycle of death and rebirth is broken by the attainment of liberation (moksha), after death the soul will travel to a new body that will serve as its next incarnation. (The type of body into which each soul is transferred after death is determined by the law of karma, which precisely and dispassionately dispenses justice by means of placing each soul in a body and set of circumstances that is fitting in light of the karma accrued in its previous incarnation or incarnations.) The release of the soul from this bondage to successive embodiments (caused by the accumulation of bad karma) and from the suffering that accompanies bodily existence is difficult to achieve since many factors are at work against the person striving for liberation. The two most formidable obstacles to overcome in this regard are ignorance (avidya) and illusion (maya). Human beings are nearly incorrigible in their misapprehension of the true nature of the self, erroneously believing that the self is a real entity that is ontologically distinct from Brahma. Add to this the fact that evil actions, which result from ignorance and illusion, create bad karma, and the prospects for achieving enlightenment and liberation appear dim. This is reflected in the fact that the world is populated by untold billions of living beings still awaiting their release from the world of suffering. Those willing to undertake the rigors of the quest for liberation can travel the path of knowledge (jnana marga; exemplified by Advaita Vedanta) or the path of devotion (bhakti marga; seen in the worship of Hindu deities such as Vishnu and Shiva). In such ways people can avoid the bondage to karma and embodied existence that results from being reincarnated.

Reincarnation in Jainism. At the core of Jainism is the belief that spiritual bondage—and the endless series of reincarnations that result from this bondage—is the universal quandary of all sentient beings. Caught in the cycle of death and rebirth, the human soul (jiva) is embodied and covered with eight types of karma particles; the performance of evil actions causes these various particles to literally stick to the soul. The bodies in which souls are reincarnated are composed of eight types of matter (vargana) and have a real, substantial existence. It is because sentient beings are ignorant of their true nature as inherently perfect godhood (or, if they are aware of this fact, because they do not spend sufficient time contemplating it) that they are confined to their bodies and must struggle to achieve liberation. Progress toward liberation from a series of otherwise unending reincarnations into bodies that prevent the experience of the supreme bliss of enlightenment involves three main components: right perception (samyak darsana), right knowledge (samyak jnana), and right conduct (samyak charitrya). If a person does not succeed in purifying himself of all bad karma by the time of his death, his remaining karmic matter accompanies his soul and constructs a new body for him to inhabit.

Reincarnation in Sikhism. In Sikhism the barriers that hinder persons from achieving liberation (and hence from breaking the cycle of successive reincarnations, known as awagaun) are primarily moral rather than epistemological, though ignorance (tamas) is a universal problem. Every human soul, while having within it a glimmer of divine light, is covered with a layer of infirmities and defects. These blemishes impede the spiritual journey from the world of death and rebirth to union with God (True Name) by rendering people less willing and able to pursue a life of virtue. Persons who act in ways contrary to God’s decrees (hukam) accrue to themselves bad karma, which postpones the time of their liberation. Those who seek to attain liberation must commit themselves to working through a three-stage process: they breach the “wall of falsehood” by gradually eradicating evil from the soul, they practice meditation as a means of developing compassion for others and exalting God, and, finally, their soul is absorbed into the divine essence. Properly grasping the divine order and behaving accordingly aids in this process. Moreover, in the Sikh view of things, karma is not an immutable reality; its operation is subject to God’s good pleasure (nadar), and thus God can choose to be gracious to his followers. Eventually, every soul will merge with the divine essence.

Bibliography. C. Ajitsingh, The Wisdom of Sikhism; P. Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices; A. L. Herman, A Brief Introduction to Hinduism: Religion, Philosophy, and Ways of Liberation; H. W. House, Charts of World Religions; L. R. Hubbard, What Is Scientology?; C. Humphreys, Karma and Rebirth; D. Keown, Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction; M. S. Kumar, The Doctrine of Liberation in Indian Religion with Special Reference to Jainism; W. H. McLeod, The Sikhs: History, Religion, and Society; W. P. O’Flaherty, Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions; W. G. Oxtoby, World Religions: Eastern Traditions; A. C. B. Swami Prabhupada, The Science of Self-Realization; R. H. Roberts, India: Religion and Philosophy; N. Shah, Jainism: The World of Conquerors; C. Shattuck, Hinduism; B. H. Streeter, Reincarnation, Karma and Theosophy; J. D. Walters, Essence of Self-Realization: The Wisdom of Paramahansa Yogananda.

H. W. House

RELIGION. Defining religion is a vexed and contentious matter, for at least two reasons. First, groups historically regarded as genuine religions vary dramatically in their essential beliefs and practices. For example, Theravada Buddhists are atheists or agnostics, Christians are trinitarian, some Hindus and New Agers are pantheistic, and (many) Mormons and all Shintoists are polytheistic. Therefore, religion cannot be defined in exclusively monotheistic terms. Nor can it be held that all religions are merely expressing the same reality in different ways. They deviate too widely on core concepts regarding ultimate reality, the human condition, and the way of spiritual liberation. Second, scholars disagree as to whether atheistic/secular belief systems such as Marxism or secular humanism should be classified as religions or nonreligious ideologies that are pursued with “religious zeal.”

Some scholars, therefore, have abandoned the attempt to find any necessary and sufficient conditions for the essence of religion and instead have adopted a Wittgensteinian “family resemblance” notion. This stipulates that religions display a cluster of related attributes, but no one religion need have any one point in common with every other religion. This is analogous to blood relations of the famous Kennedy family, who all display a noticeable resemblance to one another but without there being one “Kennedy-esque” feature they all share.

Without solving all these debates, the following definition is offered. Religions involve worldviews and social practices that lay claim to certain objective truths concerning (1) the existence of ultimate reality (the sacred or holy), which is viewed as transcendent (such as Yahweh, the Trinity, Allah, Brahman, the Tao, nirvana); (2) the human condition (as unenlightened or sinful), and (3) the means of spiritual liberation or salvation (such as faith in God, mystical experience, good works). Religions offer a wide-ranging sense of meaning to their adherents by prescribing how they ought to orient themselves toward the ultimate reality spiritually, existentially, morally, and socially. This right orientation to the transcendent is viewed as necessarily connected to proper beliefs and practices (such as prayer, meditation, ritual, rites of passage).

Some new religious movements desire the status of being officially recognized as a religion, while others shun it. Transcendental Meditation (TM), for instance, has sought to present itself as a nonreligious therapy in public schools and the military in the US but has thus far been legally barred from doing so on the grounds that TM is a form of Hinduism. Therefore, it is thought, state support would violate the US Constitution by “establishing” a religion.

The dominant view among secular thinkers is that religion began as a merely human response to the mysterious aspects of nature. Guided by evolutionary and naturalistic presuppositions, they claim that religion has progressed through various stages, each of which becomes increasingly complex intellectually. The process begins with fetishism and moves to animism, polytheism, henotheism, and finally to monotheism. The power of this model lies more in its ideological assumptions than in the historical evidence in its favor, which is thin and highly speculative. Scripture inverts the secular pyramid and reveals that monotheism was the original religion from which other forms deviated after humans fell into sin (Rom. 1:18–32). German anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt has written in defense of original monotheism.

Many sociologists predicted the gradual demise of all religion as the world modernized and left less and less room for the supernatural. However, the “secularization thesis” has been soundly refuted by the explosion of new religious movements worldwide as well as by the resurgence of Islam and the ongoing global growth of Christianity, especially in the third world.

Some Christian thinkers, such as Karl Barth and Gordon Clark, have refused to place Christianity in the category of a religion at all since it claims to be a supernatural and divine revelation, not merely a human religion, which can be reduced to anthropological, psychological, and sociological phenomena. At any rate, in its supernatural attestation (particularly regarding the resurrection of its divine founder), Christianity is sufficiently different from all other religions—including other monotheistic faiths—to merit its uniqueness and supremacy.

The Bible stipulates that true religion is held only by those people who manifest in their actions and attitudes the settled convictions (saving faith) offered by God’s grace in Christ for their salvation (Eph. 2:8–9; James 2:14–26).

Bibliography. A. Aldridge, Religion in the Contemporary World: A Sociological Introduction; W. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions; P. E. Devine, “On the Definition of Religion,” Faith and Philosophy.

D. R. Groothuis

RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS (QUAKERS). The Religious Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers, is a quietist reform movement founded in England in the seventeenth century. For the first century of their existence, Quakers were persecuted as heretical and unorthodox. In modern times, though still not evangelical, they are socially acceptable such that two US presidents have identified themselves as Quakers: Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon.

The movement began in 1647 when George Fox (1624–91) was led to exhort the Church of England to return to primitive Christianity, often even interrupting ministers during the sermon. Fox rejected the outward or external forms of religion (baptism, confirmation, priesthood, church rituals), stressing the need for a direct, inward experience of Christ. Fox emphasized the “inner Light” or “Christ within” each person rather than the “outward Christ” of profession. Without a conversion to that Christ, one was in spiritual darkness; even a lifetime of church membership was worthless. The Friends saw themselves as a restorationist movement, recovering truth lost after centuries of apostasy and abandoning every custom not found in Scripture.

Fox’s disciples dressed plainly and waited silently for the conscious moving of the Spirit before speaking, singing, or preaching. Though they called themselves “saints,” “seekers,” or “children of the light,” in 1650 a judge in Derby called them Quakers due to Fox’s insistence that the righteous should “tremble” at God’s Word (citing Isa. 66:2). The name stuck.

The new movement spread quickly. Missionaries carried it to Europe, Asia, and Africa in fewer than ten years. The established church found it blasphemous, and thousands were persecuted. In the first thirty years of the movement, over fourteen thousand suffered fines or imprisonment, thousands were tortured, and over three hundred were executed. The first Quakers in America arrived in 1656 but were forced to immediately return to England. Subsequent immigrants were imprisoned, flogged, or hanged, until King Charles II granted Quaker William Penn sovereign control of a huge tract of land, expecting most Quakers to leave England for the New World. The property was named Pennsylvania and became a centerpiece of religious liberty.

The main points of opposition to the Quakers were theological and political. Theologically, the Quakers rejected the church’s authority entirely. They rejected baptism and the Lord’s Supper in favor of an “inner baptism” and an “inner communion.” They denied the authority of the priesthood, the need for trained or paid clergy, and clerical dress. Women were allowed to preach and teach. Quakers repudiated the use of steeples in architecture and of the church calendar. They refused to pay tithes and taught sinless perfection. They affirmed an “inner Light” within all humanity, including the pagans. They gave greater esteem to the Word in their midst than the Word in Scripture, and leading Quakers eschewed using the word “Trinity” to describe the Godhead.

Socially and politically, they did not recognize the authority of civil leaders. This meant they would not bow, kneel, or remove their hat before superiors. They did not use titles of honor, such as “sir,” “lord,” or even “you.” (The old Quaker custom of addressing everyone as “thou” or “thee” rather than “you” stems from a provincial quirk where individuals of nobility were addressed as “you.” In the King James translation of the Bible, “you” is always a second-person plural pronoun, not a pronoun of nobility.) Quakers would not take an oath in court, did not believe in the “divine right of kings,” and could not participate in war, including taxation for war. They supported the abolition of slavery but could not employ violence to achieve this. They decried jewelry, wigs, decorated clothing, balls, sports, or “amusements.” They adopted a distinctive and plain habit of dress, and Quakers could only marry other Quakers.

In America the Quakers generally proved to be honest, hardworking people, and many government officials in Pennsylvania were Quakers, apparently recognizing the civil authority of Quaker governmental officials, but resigned at the beginning of the French and Indian War (1754). The name Religious Society of Friends was adopted in the mid-eighteenth century, with “Friends” being the preferred nickname. Both George Whitefield and John Wesley believed that, despite their separatist ways and rejection of “externals,” a number of Quaker families possessed the true Spirit of Christ.

Later Developments. Early worship was antiliturgical, as Friends silently waited for the Spirit before saying or doing anything. Frequently the worship was simply waiting on the Lord, with no one speaking at all. In later stages, influenced by Protestant preaching and worship, some Friends incorporated planned music, preaching, and exhortation into their services. Today the Friends churches can be divided into those that have programmed services and those that do not.

The Friends’ corporate unity was maintained through “meetings,” which were held monthly, quarterly, and annually and organized geographically. The monthly and quarterly meetings were occasions for discipline or recognition, and unity was maintained by epistles distributed from one annual meeting to the others.

By the last half of the nineteenth century, the Friends had split into four factions along issues such as participation in war, the atonement of Christ, biblical authority, education, programmed worship, and innovations such as altar calls or hiring preachers. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, there were over a dozen different factions of the Religious Society of Friends (the liberals usually omit the term Religious). Long ago they dropped their distinctive clothing and archaic forms of speech, except for a very small group called the Conservative Friends.

Today there are three main branches. Those with evangelical inclinations would prefer the Evangelical Friends International (about 24,000 members). Services are programmed, are often led by a pastor, and follow evangelical beliefs on biblical authority, salvation, and traditional marriage. Those Friends who prefer unprogrammed, silent meetings and acceptance of universalism and same-sex marriage will gravitate toward the Friends General Conference (about 32,000 members). By far the largest branch is the Friends United Meeting (about 148,000 members), where most worship is programmed, more liberal views are tolerated, and there are numerous opportunities for social action.

Bibliography. M. P. Abbott et al., Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers); W. J. Allinson, “Friends, Society of,” in Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, edited by J. McClintock and J. Strong; M. H. Bacon, “On the Verge: The Evolution of American Quakerism,” in America’s Alternative Religions, edited by T. Miller; H. Barbour, “Quakers,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition, edited by L. Jones; S. M. Janney, “Friends, Society of,” in Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (1887); F. E. Mayer, “The Quakers,” in Religious Bodies of America, 4th ed.; J. G. Melton and M. Baumann, “Evangelical Friends International,” “Friends General Conference,” “Friends/Quakers,” “Friends United Meeting,” and “Friends World Committee for Consultation,” in Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, edited by J. G. Melton and M. Baumann; I. Sharpless, “Friends, Society of,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, edited by S. M. Jackson (1914).

E. Pement

REN/JEN. Ren/Jen (Chinese, “human-heartedness”; “benevolence”) is the most fundamental of the Confucian virtues, the moral basis for the practice of loving and humane behavior and the avoidance of impropriety. Confucius thought that human beings are essentially good; hence, ren was an ethical quality that resided naturally in each person. Yet ren is not viewed properly if it is taken to be a virtue possessed merely by individuals. Instead, it ought to be understood as necessarily embodied in the dynamics of socially cooperative, mutually kind, and properly respectful interpersonal relationships. Among other things, ren prevents ritual transactions—the performance of which allows for social stability—from becoming ethically and emotionally empty or merely perfunctory. Though by no means advocating lawbreaking, ren prioritizes the preservation of key social relationships over what otherwise would be the right course of action. For example, according to most traditional understandings of ren, if a son caught his father stealing, his duty to maintain loyalty to his father would outweigh his obligation to report his father to the authorities.

Ren also is an important element in the Confucian theory of government: if a ruler treats his subjects inhumanely, he forfeits his authority to rule and can be rightfully disobeyed. During the history of Confucian thought, the concept of ren has been variously elucidated as the foundation of social virtue, the primary feature that distinguishes human beings from animals, the compassion shown by rulers to their subjects, and a crucial component of the Mandate of Heaven (T’ien Ming / Tianming).

See also CONFUCIANISM; CONFUCIUS

Bibliography. J. A. Berling, “Confucianism,” Focus on Asian Studies, vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 1982); T. Cleary, trans., The Essential Confucius; A. Waley, trans., The Analects of Confucius, repr. ed.; X. Yao, An Introduction to Confucianism.

H. W. House

REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. See COMMUNITY OF CHRIST

RESURRECTION OF JESUS. There is little dispute that the resurrection of Jesus occupies the very center of the Christian faith. I will examine briefly the nature of this event and its place in Christianity before contrasting it with other belief systems. Although I will make some comments about the historicity of the resurrection, my primary goal is not apologetic. Rather, I am describing the belief itself, its role in Christianity, and how this is distinctive vis-à-vis other faiths. Even the latter will not engender a polemical approach but will emphasize contrasting positions.

The Gospel and the Resurrection. The Gospels report that Jesus’s central proclamation was the good news that the kingdom of God was at hand (Mark 1:15) and, in fact, had already arrived (Luke 11:20). Jesus’s coming, preaching, and death would provide the means by which the kingdom could be appropriated (Mark 10:45; 14:24). What one did specifically with Jesus determined whether one gained entrance into God’s kingdom (Matt. 10:37–38; Mark 8:34–38; 10:27–30).

Lurking behind these utterances are the incredible claims that Jesus was both the Son of Man (Mark 2:1–12; 13:26) and the Son of God (Matt. 11:27; Mark 13:32). Combining both of these titles along with the claim that he would sit on God’s right hand led to Jesus’s death, due to the charge of blasphemy (Mark 14:61–64).

Following Jesus was the key. To what message, then, was one to respond? The Christian gospel is the kernel of truth that, when combined with a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ, results in salvation. When the content of this gospel is defined in the New Testament, primarily in Acts (2:29–36; 3:12–26; 10:34–43) and in the epistles (Rom. 1:1–6; 10:9–13; 1 Pet. 1:3–9, 18–21), it centers on the deity (indicated by special titles), death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Incidentally, each of these texts in Acts and Romans above is generally thought to be a creedal statement or tradition, a snippet of the earliest oral preaching, therefore actually predating any writing in which it appears.

The gospel message centers on the person of Jesus Christ and what he provided by his death and resurrection. He is the key to salvation. God himself provided what no human theory could offer—a sinless sacrifice for human shortcomings, an event that indicated its effectiveness through Jesus’s atoning death and bodily resurrection. After all, if Jesus had not been able to conquer death, how could this path serve as the chief indication that believers would also rise from the dead and live forever?

Hence, the historical event of the resurrection took on great significance. Not only was it part of the earliest gospel proclamation, but we are told that Jesus pointed to the resurrection as the chief indicator that he was God’s answer, God’s path to salvation (Matt. 12:38–42; 16:1–4). According to John’s Gospel, his resurrection also played a practical role in comforting believers who had lost loved ones (11:21–27). And his appearances answered the doubts and questions of his own disciples (Matt. 28:16–20; Luke 24:36–43; John 20:8–9, 19–29).

The Centrality of the Resurrection. Not only did Jesus himself make his resurrection central to his message; so did the early church in its preaching and teaching (Acts 4:1–2, 33). The resurrection grounded and evidenced the gospel message of salvation, as seen in the early creedal texts (Rom. 1:1–4; 4:25; 10:9).

In fact theology as a whole was linked to the truth of this event (1 Cor. 15:12–19); indeed, Paul’s sense of its importance led him to declare that without the resurrection, even faith itself was vain (15:14, 17). It changed believers from the most miserable and pitied people in the world into those with an eternal hope (15:19–20). Almost two dozen times in the New Testament, this event was the reason for the believers’ hope in their own bodily resurrection (John 14:19; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 John 3:2) as well as their assurance of the glories of heaven (1 Pet. 1:3–4). The resurrection was well evidenced (Acts 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:3–11) and ensured the truth of the Christian message (Acts 2:22–36; 17:29–31; Rom. 1:3–4).

Further, Jesus’s resurrection also undergirded the practical aspects of the Christian life. For example, it transformed lives (John 20:16–18, 28–29; Acts 4:33; 9:1–22), was the impetus for early evangelism (Matt. 28:18–20; Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8), and led to the birth of the church (Acts 1:21–22; 2:14–47). It comforted the doubting (Luke 24:36–42; John 20:19–20) and was the antidote to grief (John 11:21–25; 1 Thess. 4:13–14) and suffering (2 Cor. 4:7–18) alike. It evoked great joy and praise (Matt. 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52–53; 1 Pet. 1:3–9). It provided daily power (Phil. 3:10), including victory over sin (Rom. 6:6–14; 8:9–11). The resurrection also grounded the practice of Christian ethics (1 Cor. 15:32). Even the fear of death was transformed in light of Jesus’s death and resurrection (Heb. 2:14–15).

For reasons such as these, we can get a small glimpse of how the event of Jesus’s resurrection occupied the very center of Christian thought in the earliest church. Early Christians claimed that it corroborated Jesus’s message and formed the very center of the Christian gospel. It grounded theology and made hope possible during times of rampant persecution and suffering. The resurrection teaching even inspired the everyday practice of the Christian virtues. As Paul said, without this event there is no Christianity. But with it, everything else follows.

But Did It Happen? Although this discussion is not apologetic in nature, a few things still need to be said about the historicity of the resurrection. After all, this is a major feature of the New Testament hope. And because I want to contrast Christian belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus with other religious approaches, I should acknowledge that to do so is to assume that the resurrection actually happened. Otherwise, it could simply be dismissed. So although I will barely touch the subject, some background should be helpful, and the references below will provide more sources for historical research.

Several converging lines of testimony indicate the historical nature of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. Contemporary scholarship begins with a few select writings of the apostle Paul, due to their known authorship and dates of composition. Further, the chief New Testament text here is 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, which scholars almost unanimously agree to be an oral teaching that Paul received from other authoritative leaders at a very early date. Among the many indications of this is that Paul himself explains that this is what happened (15:3a). This alone means that we have a list of resurrection appearances dating back to the earliest church, before any New Testament book was written. The text reports appearances to both individuals and groups.

How early is this creedal statement? The consensus of scholarly research is that Paul probably received either the actual list of Jesus’s appearances itself or at least the report of the details from Peter and James the brother of Jesus when he visited Jerusalem just three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18–24). This would place Paul’s reception of these data around AD 35. Then, to make absolutely sure of his message, Paul went back to Jerusalem to confirm his gospel preaching with Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:1–10). Paul explains that his explicit purpose was to receive the affirmation of his gospel from the other apostles (Gal. 2:2), which they acknowledged (Gal. 2:6, 9). This indicates that all four of these apostles agreed regarding the gospel data of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

While the emphasis is on Paul’s early reception of this material from the three main apostolic witnesses, it must not be forgotten that Paul himself was an eyewitness to an appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). Moreover, Paul states directly afterward that he was aware of the message taught by the other apostles and that they preached the same truth regarding their also having seen appearances of the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:11).

So here we have a tight, multifaceted witness to the fact of the resurrection appearances of Jesus, all from the time directly after the crucifixion of Jesus. The four most influential apostles in the early church—Paul, Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus—all agreed that they had seen Jesus after his death, both individually and in groups. Further, as noted, the last three apostles specifically approved Paul’s gospel message, just as Paul reported separately his support of their teaching. In short, these four major apostles were the right people, in the right place, at the right time, to witness these incredible events. No wonder that critical scholars realize the exceptionally good case for these events.

Intriguingly, comparatively few critical scholars try to question this appearance testimony by raising alternative scenarios. This is probably because a host of opposing arguments greets each of these natural suppositions.

Besides this tight bundle of testimony, there are still other indications that Jesus had been raised from the dead and appeared to his followers. For example, we have reports from the first century AD that at least three of these four apostles (Paul, Peter, and James) all died for their message as martyrs. While it is true that people are frequently willing to die when they are deeply committed to a religious or political message, this apostolic message is different. Since we generally conclude that a willing death indicates that the martyr truly believed his message, this is especially important in that these apostles died for the truth of their central message: the gospel, which centered on the resurrection of Jesus.

In other words, while martyrs are personally convinced that their message is true, they almost always die for the teachings of someone else who lived at an earlier time. Even in the comparatively few cases where martyrs die for their own experience, it is for something less than a resurrection. For as we will see below, Christianity is the only major religion that teaches the bodily resurrection of its founder. These apostles, then, are the chief witnesses to whether Jesus ever appeared, and their martyrdom indicates their firm conviction that they had been with the risen Jesus.

Additionally, at least two of the witnesses—Paul and James the brother of Jesus—had previously been unbelievers who were convinced against their former positions by these appearances. These events propelled them in an entirely new direction.

In addition to 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, very early creedal statements from elsewhere in the New Testament, such as the early Acts preaching and other Pauline Epistles, confirm this same message. Once again the crisscrossing of the data produces additional evidence from other perspectives.

Last, critical scholars have noted almost two dozen evidences that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty shortly afterward. True, an empty tomb does not prove a resurrection. But in light of the other evidences such as those cited above, it adds a significant amount of helpful data, especially regarding the bodily nature of this event.

Therefore, we have outstanding evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead (see especially Habermas, Risen Jesus, chap. 1; Habermas and Licona; and Licona). The data strongly support the bodily nature of this event as well.

Other Religious and Philosophical Positions. Here I will contrast the orthodox Christian notion of bodily resurrection with other positions.

For example, the position that Jesus was actually raised from the dead contrasts particularly with all philosophical naturalisms, which deny the existence of the supernatural realm, holding that nature is all that exists. Naturalism also obviously contrasts with belief in the existence of God and the deity of Jesus Christ. Still, it is intriguing that naturalistic systems of thought most often employ empirical methodologies, as do many Christian scholars. Thus the most fruitful dialogue here would probably contrast the state of the empirical evidence: who has the stronger position?

Naturalists who treat the resurrection frequently suggest natural alternative means of explaining the resurrection data. Those who do so remain a distinct minority of scholars, since as mentioned above, most do not think that these options are the best explanations of all the known historical facts, which are thought to nullify these natural hypotheses. But this does not negate the spirited conversations that sometimes ensue (see Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend”).

Further, the predominant view today among orthodox Christians, as well as many other scholars, is that Jesus was raised in a bodily manner, in a form that occupied space and time. One of the chief indications here is the meaning of the relevant Greek terms themselves, which in the ancient world virtually always referred to bodily events, whether the terms were used by pagans, Jews, or Christians. Also helpful is the predominant Jewish background of bodily resurrection at the time, as well as the New Testament contexts themselves (see especially Wright, parts 1 and 2).

The scars from Jesus’s crucifixion wounds (Luke 24:39–40; John 20:20–21, 27; Rev. 1:7) indicate further that however his body may have changed, Jesus’s resurrected state exhibited continuity—it was the same body in which he was crucified. This is taken to be a further, crucial indication that Christian believers will also be raised bodily.

This position agrees with the predominant Jewish view of the general resurrection of the body from just before and after the time of Jesus, such as that held by the Pharisees. Many Jewish and Muslim believers also hold to bodily resurrection, including continuity, although they often deny that Jesus has already been raised from the dead. Intriguingly, some Jews and many Muslims seem to hold that Jesus will be raised bodily on the last day, along with other righteous persons.

The Christian notion of Jesus’s resurrection specifically in bodily form contrasts with those views that support the resurrection of Jesus but in a nonphysical body, as held by Jehovah’s Witnesses, along with some Spiritists and members of the Unification Church. Others, such as many Platonists and perhaps the majority of Hindus (plus many others in the ancient world), often espouse an idealistic philosophy that accepts a more spiritual form of immortality rather than bodily resurrection.

The biblical notion of Jesus’s resurrection also requires a distinct, personal element, as indicated chiefly by Jesus being recognized after his resurrection. Although some believers did not initially identify him (Luke 24:31–32; John 20:14–15), most did. Several causes may account for the former: some may have been restrained supernaturally (Luke 24:16?); others may have failed to recognize him for the same reason we don’t recognize friends whom we haven’t seen for a while; still others, because of changes in Jesus’s resurrected body. This New Testament view contrasts with those positions that dictate that the afterlife is impersonal, such as prominent forms of Buddhism and particular varieties of Hinduism.

When the conversation is extended beyond the resurrection as such to the Christian gospel as a whole, as I did above, we find that Jesus’s own teaching centered on the kingdom of God, whose coming began with his preaching and would later involve a refurbished earth. Some Jews and Muslims might agree that the kingdom of God is to come literally, but many adherents of more exclusively spiritual views of reality, such as those of Buddhism and Hinduism, would deny it. For Christians one enters into gospel salvation in God’s kingdom by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ rather than by good works. This orthodox Christian position contrasts with that of most non-Christian religious adherents, as does the notion of a blood atonement by God’s Messiah. These doctrines would probably be rejected by most other religious faiths.

To be sure, on some points Christianity and other faith systems agree; the chief example may be Jewish and Muslim views of general resurrection, which often involve personal continuity in a new body. However, the most important contrasts between Christianity and other religions concern Jesus’s deity and atoning death and the historical event of his bodily resurrection—what we have called the gospel. Other contrasts involve appropriating this gospel message by a faith-commitment to him.

Orthodox Christians point out that, for a variety of reasons, Jesus’s resurrection indicates that the Christian gospel message is true since it shows that Jesus’s teachings on these matters were confirmed by God (see Habermas, Risen Jesus, chaps. 2–3). It seems difficult to deny that, overall, the resurrection is so momentous that, if it occurred in the manner depicted in the New Testament, it strongly challenges both entire non-Christian systems and their individual doctrines. This is probably why Jesus’s resurrection is regularly denied or at least questioned by other religions and philosophies.

The Uniqueness of Jesus’s Central Message. To summarize: a number of Jesus’s teachings appear unique when compared to the messages of the other major religious figures. I will mention five areas of contrast.

First, among the founders of the major world religions, only Jesus placed himself in the position of Deity. It is often assumed that other founders made similar claims, but this cannot be substantiated from any reliable historical data regarding their teachings. Confucius and Lao Tzu were ethicists, while Gautama the Buddha may have been an atheist. Neither the Jewish nor the Muslim tradition deifies any of its prophets or teachers.

Second, while great religious teachers commonly claimed to help their followers discover God’s path or to teach them the secrets of life, only Jesus emphasized the ontological truth that what one does specifically with him determines whether one will enter the eternal kingdom of God. In him his hearers were confronted with God’s presence as well as God’s message.

Third, Jesus is the only founder of a major world religion of whom miracles are reported within a few decades. To be sure, the Buddha is said to have performed supernatural feats, but these generally were not recorded until hundreds of years later.

Fourth, only Jesus taught that his death would provide the means by which salvation would be available. Further, although Buddhism has much to say about suffering, often teaching that it is illusory, the Christian gospel affirms the reality of evil and pain, to the point of affirming that God did not even remove his Son from the cross.

Fifth, of all the followers of major world religions, only the orthodox followers of Jesus teach that he was raised bodily from the dead and appeared in space-time history. In light of the comments by Jesus and the early church that this event indicated that his teachings were true, the resurrection is clearly a central tenet of belief.

Conclusion. People certainly can make and have made all sorts of religious claims. Whether those claims are true is the decisive issue. But this last step will not be decided here. We only made a case for the meaning of Jesus’s bodily resurrection within an orthodox Christian context, including its being an indispensable part of the Christian gospel as well as the center of Christian theology and practice as a whole. We have also provided some initial reasons why many have decided in favor of the historicity of the resurrection, before contrasting it with other religious and philosophical beliefs.

Bibliography. W. L. Craig, The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus; S. T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection; G. R. Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, edited by R. B. Stewart; Habermas, The Resurrection: Heart of New Testament Doctrine; Habermas, The Resurrection: Heart of the Christian Life, vol. 2; Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope; G. R. Habermas and M. R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus; M. R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God.

G. R. Habermas

REVELATION. Revelation is the act whereby God, a god, or the gods reveal themselves and/or their will to humankind. In Judaism revelation comes through the Hebrew Bible; in Christianity through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament; in Islam through the Qur’an. The Hindu tradition associates revelation with ruti, or “what is heard,” and has increasingly seen this in connection with the Vedas, Upanishads, and other religious literature. Buddhism, in practice, treats the sayings of the Buddha as a form of revelation, which is more accurately described as “insight,” and Buddhism denies the involvement of God or gods. Jainism also denies all nonhuman sources of revelation. In other religious traditions, revelation comes from ancestors and/or gods for specific purposes.

Traditionally Christians claimed that special revelation ended with the canonization of the New Testament. Claims about continuing revelation have led to the growth of new forms of Christianity that are often heretical. Recently ideas about ongoing revelation have become popular in certain branches of the charismatic movement, where prophets and prophecy are a common phenomenon.

See also CHRISTIAN; REVELATION

Bibliography. G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelation; B. A. Demarest, General Revelation; R. C. Sproul, J. Gerstner, and A. Lindsley, Classical Apologetics.

S. B. Cowan

RITES OF PASSAGE. Rites of passage are the ritual performances in any society that mark and acknowledge the important transitional periods in a person’s life. They accompany one through the life-altering changes in one’s social status at times of birth, passing into adulthood, marriage, or death.

The greatest contribution to understanding rites of passage was made by Belgian anthropologist Arnold Van Gennep (1873–1957). After closely observing, recording, and analyzing the regularity and importance of such rituals, he coined the term rite of passage to describe this phenomenon in his book The Rites of Passage. He realized how significant such ceremonial proceedings were for communities when they were dealing with change or a need for renewal. Van Gennep categorized all rites of passage as having three stages, which are distinct even though sometimes one can be more prominent than the other: separation, transition, and incorporation.

When people’s status or role in their society or group is changing, they first experience a distancing from their old, familiar status. This period is called rite of separation. After that they progress into what Van Gennep called a transitional period or liminality, when every participant becomes marginalized and vulnerable. Victor Turner (1969) focused on the liminal phase of rites and explored the relationships between people who are simultaneously undergoing the change in social status, and he concluded that because of lack of social structure they experienced a greater sense of what he called communitas, or togetherness, due to shared experience. At the end of the rite, people are finally reincorporated into their social group structure, where they are fully accepted by everyone as carrying a new social status.

Jean Holm and John Bowker’s book Rites of Passage (1994) provides an extensive set of essays about different rites of passage from all major world religions. Among other things, they discuss Buddhist funerary rites, Christian ordination rites, Chinese birth rites, Islamic naming rites, and Jewish circumcision rites.

In Judaism boys and girls going through the physical transition from puberty to adulthood must participate in a coming-of age-ceremony, for boys, a bar mitzvah, or “son of the commandment,” and for girls, a bat mitzvah, or “daughter of the commandment” (Holm and Bowker, 122). This life-changing experience can be quite trying and critical for them. The boy must stand before the whole congregation and read from the Torah, which is hard for him to do, but by overcoming his fears and performing his duty he proves that he is worthy to be accepted and treated by others as an adult and a full member of the community. The party that follows is one of reincorporation.

Christian anthropologist Victor Turner (1920–83) used rites of passage to explain membership of religious groups such as the early Franciscans and the counterculture of the 1960s in the US. Irving Hexham (b. 1943) built on Turner’s work to explain conversion to New Age–type groups in Glastonbury, England. Thus the concept is very useful for understanding the phases of the conversion process and birth of new religions.

Bibliography. I. Hexham, Some Aspects of the Contemporary Search for an Alternative Society; J. Holm and J. Bowker, eds., Rites of Passage; V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure; A. Van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, translated by M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee.

D. Fatovic

RITUALS. A ritual is a sacred custom or any form of repetitive behavior that is fixed by tradition.

In different religions, people enact their beliefs and make them real by performing ceremonial rituals. These are usually socially prescribed symbolic behaviors that are formal, structured, and repetitive, such as worship, singing, recitation, manipulation of sacred objects, or dance. Rituals are often performed at regular intervals, within specialized, sacred locations.

Rituals are of many types, but common to them all is the conviction that what is being done on earth approximates the divine or supernaturally revealed order. Because of this, people can obtain certain powers through performing rituals, in order to influence the living conditions here on earth. One example of this is cyclical rituals performed to ensure a good harvest.

Victor Turner (1920–83), a British Roman Catholic and symbolic anthropological theorist, made an immense contribution to the understanding of ritual processes in his classic work The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (1969). After doing fieldwork among the Ndembu people of Africa, he discussed and analyzed his findings about ritual practices in such a way as to show both symbolic structures and social implications of liminal stages of ritual. He was aware of the deeper meaning and importance of rituals for communities and therefore went beyond simply describing in detail “stylized gestures and singing the cryptic songs of ritual performance” (7). Turner also argued that during the liminal, or transitional, phase of ritual, which is defined as socially marginal, stressful, and ambiguous, the subjects of the sacred performance “tend to develop an intense comradeship and egalitarianism,” which he called communitas (95).

Christianity is full of rich and complex rituals that enable believers to experience their relationship to God and at the same time affirm the solidarity of church membership. For instance, sacraments, or “sacred actions,” such as baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist are some of the essential rituals in Christianity, as are acts of weekly worship and special occasions like the celebration of Christmas and Easter. Baptism is an important ritual among all Christian denominations except the Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Salvation Army, and despite some different symbolic interpretations, it can be viewed as an initiation rite. A person is either immersed in or sprinkled with water as a symbolic sign of cleansing, and through participating in this ritual act he or she becomes an official member of the church. Another Roman Catholic anthropologist, Mary Douglas (1921–2007), expanded on the meaning of rituals and explained in her book Natural Symbols (1970) her vision of the human body as symbolizing the social structure. She also argued that tight communities with strong social control toward conformation tend to adhere to more ritualistic religious practices. Because of the sacred meaning of ritual in those situations, followers tend to accept their reality as an unquestionable truth. This kind of worship is not individualistic or internal, as among Protestants.

Religious reformations or revitalization movements often interpret their own work as a reaction to the ritual expressions of another group—which they term “dead rituals”—and see their own activity as a total rejection of ritual, but this notion is mistaken. Thus the Plymouth Brethren reject the Roman Catholic High Mass on theological grounds, yet, in fact, their own services have many rituals, even though the participants usually do not recognize them as such.

Rituals serve to both draw people into and maintain membership in religious communities. For example, the “Christian Year” creates a calendar of events (Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter) that shape the believers’ use of time.

Bibliography. C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice; M. Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology; V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure.

D. Fatovic

ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The membership of the Roman Catholic Church exceeds one billion, though this number may not be completely accurate since persons generally remain on the rolls unless they are excommunicated. During the twentieth century, Roman Catholicism was found largely in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Quebec in Canada, and portions of the US. Recently, however, the growth of the Roman Catholic Church has been in Africa and Asia.

History of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Roman Catholics claim that the Roman Catholic Church has existed from the very beginning of Christianity, many historians place the formal creation of the church in 1054, when the Roman and Eastern churches officially split. Others trace its beginning much further back, to Pope Leo I in the fifth century. Leo I was the first bishop of Rome to argue for and assert the primacy of the authority of the Roman church over all other churches. No matter which date is used, it is clear that the Western church, headed by Rome, has historically held several distinctive beliefs apart from the rest of Christianity. These include, among others, the so-called filioque clause, both the primacy and infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception and bodily ascension of Mary, and indulgences.

The history of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) can be profitably viewed from the twenty-one ecumenical councils of the Christian church that it accepts as authoritative. By contrast Eastern Orthodoxy accepts only the first seven, and most Protestants only the first four. So as time went on, the RCC moved farther and farther from its starting point and commonality with other sections of Christendom, especially in the last few centuries.

The General Councils of the Church. General church councils have played an important role in the development of Roman Catholicism. Indeed, the RCC considers the decrees of these councils infallible. The first eight councils were convened by emperors, whereas the last thirteen were convened by popes.

1. The First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) was called by the professing Christian emperor Constantine. In condemnation of the heresy of Arianism, it affirmed in the Nicene Creed on the Trinity the full deity of Christ as eternal and of the same nature as the Father. In addition, the council taught that bishops should be appointed only by other bishops (canon 4), that excommunication is to be done by a bishop (canon 5), and that the bishops have jurisdiction over their own geographical areas (canon 6). It also demanded that all who convert to the church “should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church” (Schaff, 14:19).

2. The First Council of Constantinople (381) was convened by Emperor Theodosius I (379–95) to unite the church. It reaffirmed the Nicene Creed, proclaimed the deity of the Holy Spirit, and united the Eastern church (divided by the Arian controversy). The emperor is said to have “founded the orthodox Christian state. Arianism and other heresies became legal offenses, sacrifice [to pagan gods] was forbidden, and paganism almost outlawed” (Cross, 1361).

The practices of Theodosius I were later codified by Emperor Theodosian II into the “Theodosian Code” (proclaimed in 438), which later was superseded by the Justinian Code (539) and was later expanded into the Corpus Juris Civilis (body of [Roman] civil law), which became the basis for Canon Law in the West (Cross, 771), which became binding on all churches under the administration of the Roman church.

3. The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned Nestorianism (which asserted there were two persons as well as two natures in Christ). Since Christ is only one person with two natures, it concluded that “this was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh” (Cyril, Epistle to Nestorius, in Schaff, 14:198).

4. The Council of Chalcedon (451) was called by Emperor Marcian to deal with the Eutychian (Monophysite) heresy, which merged the two natures of Christ, making a logically incoherent combination of an infinite-finite nature. Of five-hundred-plus bishops present, only two were from the West, plus two papal delegates. The heretic Eutyches had said, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature” (Schaff, 14:258). The council agreed with Archbishop (Pope) Leo to “anathamatize” this as “absurd,” “extremely foolish,” “extremely blasphemous,” and “impious” (Schaff, 14:258).

The council’s recognition of an “archbishop” or bishop over bishops represents a new step in the long development of the Roman hierarchy, a development that culminated in the infallible authority of the bishop of bishops, the bishop of Rome (i.e., the pope), at Vatican I (1870).

Of historic importance is the statement that gives the reason any primacy was given to Rome in the first place—namely, “For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of the old Rome, because it was the royal city” (canon 28). This confirms the interpretation of Irenaeus’s statement that the primacy of Rome was reflective, not authoritative. That is, Rome was given more respect, not authority, because it was the church in the capital of the empire and, therefore, more reflective of the whole church since representatives from the whole empire would naturally consort there (Schaff, 14:288).

5. The Second Council of Constantinople (553) was convoked by Emperor Justinian. It issued fourteen anathemas, the first twelve directed at Theodore of Mopsuestia. A later insert places Origen’s name in the eleventh anathema, something accepted by later popes. Among the heresies condemned are Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism (statements 1–11), and Adoptionism (12). Two statements affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary, calling her the “ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (statements 5 and 14). The council condemned the reigning pope (Vigilius) as heretical; he later recanted and approved of the action of the council (Schaff, 14:305).

6. The Third Council of Constantinople (680) was convened by Emperor Constantine IV (Pogonatus). It affirmed the “five holy ecumenical councils” before it (Schaff, 14:345). In addition, it reaffirmed that Christ had two natures united in one person and that he had two wills, one human and one divine, which had a moral unity resulting from the complete harmony between the two natures of the God-man (as opposed to the Monothelitists, who said there was only one will in Christ). It also refers to Mary as “our Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God” (Schaff, 14:340). Macarius, the archbishop of Antioch, was condemned, along with “Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome” (Schaff, 14:342–43).

This council claimed to be not only “illuminated by the Holy Spirit” (Schaff, 14:350) but also “inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Schaff, 14:347). Thus it claimed to provide “a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible” (Schaff, 14:350). This would later be claimed by the pope for himself at Vatican I (1870). Following the council, the emperor posted an “Imperial Edict” in the church, noting that “in no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved” (Schaff, 14:353).

7. The Second Council of Nicaea (787) was called by Emperor Constantine VI and Empress Irene and attended by legates of Pope Hadrian I. It dealt with the iconoclastic controversy. It ruled in favor of venerating images: “Receiving their holy and honorable reliques with all honour, I salute and venerate these with honour. . . . Likewise also the venerable images of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . and of the holy Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and of all the Saints—the sacred images of all these, I salute and venerate” (Schaff, 14:533). Further, it pronounced “Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images” and “Anathama to those who call the sacred images idols” (Schaff, 14:534). It zealously declared, “To those who have a doubtful mind and do not confess with their whole heart that they venerate the sacred images, anathema!” (Schaff, 14:535). It encouraged prayer to Mary and the Saints, saying, “I ask for the intercessions of our spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God, and those of the holy and heavenly powers, and those of all the Saints” (Schaff, 14:533).

The contemporary iconoclasts’ objections to the council’s decisions are expressed in another council claiming to be the true seventh ecumenical council. That council declared flatly that “Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator” (Schaff, 14:543). The council concluded: “If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema” (Schaff, 14:546). They condemned Emperor Germanus of Constantinople, calling him “the double-minded, and worshipper of wood!” (Schaff, 14:546).

The Second Council of Nicaea also forbade the secular appointment of bishops, thus solidifying the independent authority of the church over against that of the state. Further, the primacy of Peter and of apostolic succession was emphasized: “For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever” (Schaff, 14:537). The council further spoke of “the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God” (Schaff, 14:537).

8. The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) was the last council to be called by the emperor. It explicitly affirmed the Second Council of Nicaea (787) and condemned the schism of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, who challenged the filioque clause in the creed (the clause that affirmed that the Holy Spirit also proceeded from the Son); this disagreement later became an important one between the Western and the Eastern churches (in 1054). The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects any council after the seventh.

9. The First Lateran Council (1123) was called by Pope Callistus. It was the first council called by a pope, which signals a further step in the development of the Roman church. It confirmed the Concordat of Worms (1122), which granted the pope, not the emperor, the sole right to invest a bishop-elect with a ring and staff and receive homage from the bishop-elect before his consecration.

10. The Second Lateran Council (1139) was convoked by Pope Innocent II for the reformation of the church. It condemned the schism of Arnold of Brescia, a reformer who spoke against confession to a priest in favor of confession of believers to one another.

11. The Third Lateran Council (1179) was convened by Pope Alexander III to counter antipope Callistus III. It affirmed that the right to elect the pope was restricted to the College of Cardinals and that a two-thirds majority was necessary for the election of a pope.

12. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) was called by Pope Innocent III. It was another landmark council in the development from the old catholic church to the Roman Catholic Church. It affirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and seven sacraments. It gave the Dominicans authority to institute the Office of the Inquisitors, which gave the church authority to investigate heresy and turn heretics over to the state for punishment.

13. The First Council of Lyons (1245) was convened by Pope Innocent IV to heal the “five wounds” of the church: (1) moral decadence of the clergy, (2) the danger of the Saracens (Arab Muslims against whom the crusaders fought), (3) the schism with the Eastern church, (4) the invasion of Hungary by the Tartars, and (5) the rupture between the church and Emperor Frederick II. The council condemned and formally deposed Emperor Frederick II for his imprisonment of cardinals and bishops on their way to the council. It instituted minor reforms but left the main reforms of Pope Innocent untouched.

14. The Second Council of Lyons (1274) was called by Pope Gregory X to bring about union with the Eastern church, to liberate the Holy Land, and to reform morals in the church. Noted theologians Albert the Great (1193–1280) and Bonaventure (1221–74) attended, but Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) died on the way to the council. It approved some newly founded orders, including the Dominicans and the Franciscans. It included affirmation of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (the filioque clause) and did bring about union with the East, though it was short lived, ending in 1289.

15. The Council of Vienne (1311–12) was convoked by Pope Clement V to deal with the Templars (a military order of the church), who were accused of heresy and immorality. The council announced reforms, suppressed the Templars, provided assistance for the Holy Land, encouraged missions, and made decrees concerning the Inquisition, which were instituted formally in 1232 by Emperor Frederic II.

16. The Council of Constance (1414–18) was convened by Pope John XXIII in order to end the Great Schism of three simultaneous popes, to reform the church, and to combat heresy. It condemned over two hundred propositions of John Wycliffe. Reformer John Hus, who held similar doctrines, refused to recant and was burned at the stake. The council proclaimed the superiority of an ecumenical council over the pope, declaring (in a document titled Haec Sancta), “This Council holds its power direct from Christ; everyone, no matter his rank of office, even if it be papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith” (Cross, 336–37). This was later contradicted by the decision of Vatican I (1870) that the pope alone has the right to make infallible pronouncements on his own (see below).

17. The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (AD 1431–37) was called by Pope Martin V. It is a series of councils beginning with Basel (1431), moving to Ferrara (1438–39), then Florence (1439–43), and last to Rome (1443–45). Its chief objective was union with the Eastern church, which sought support from the West against the Turks, who were nearing Constantinople. The controversy centered on the double procession of the Holy Spirit, purgatory, and the primacy of the pope. By July 1439, there was agreement on “the Decree of Union,” in which the East agreed with the West on these issues. Subsequently, many bishops recanted, and the union ceased when the Turks captured Constantinople in 1453. The Council of Basel and its members were pronounced heretical.

18. The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17) was called by Pope Julius II to invalidate the decrees of the antipapal council of Pisa, convened by Louis XII of France. It agreed to a few minor reforms but did not treat the main issues of the Reformation. Later an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther addressed these issues by tacking up his Ninety-Five Theses on October 31, 1517, which started the great Protestant Reformation.

19. The Council of Trent (1545–63) was called to counter the Reformation. It declared many of the characteristic doctrines of Roman Catholicism, including the equal validity of tradition with Scripture, the seven sacraments, transubstantiation, the necessity of good works for justification, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of saints and images, prayers for the dead, prayers to the dead (saints), and the canonicity of eleven apocryphal books. Many Protestants believe Rome apostatized at Trent by a denial of the true gospel. Others see it as a significant deviation from biblical and historic orthodoxy but not a total apostasy (Geisler and McKenzie, chap. 12).

20. The First Council of the Vatican (1869–70), called by Pope Pius IX, denounced pantheism, materialism, and atheism. Pius pronounced papal infallibility. The council rejected St. Antonio of Florence’s formula that the pope, “using the counsel and seeking for help of the universal Church,” cannot err. Instead it ruled that the pope’s definitions are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church,” when the pope spoke ex cathedra, that is, as pastor and doctor of all Christians. This ruling directly contradicted the pronouncement of the Council of Constance (1414–18). It was during this period (1854) that the Roman church officially pronounced the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary.

Though not at a council, in 1950 the Roman Catholic Church pronounced infallible the doctrine of the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary.

21. The Second Council of the Vatican (1962–63) was ecumenical (with Eastern Orthodox and Protestant observers). It instituted changes in rituals (like Mass in local languages), pronounced reforms, and declared inclusivism of “separated brethren” (non-Catholic Christians) and the salvation of sincere non-Christians.

The Development of the Roman Catholic Papal Authority. The evolution of the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, a central doctrine of Roman Catholicism, illuminates the development of the Roman church in general. It stands in contrast to the Eastern church’s polity and (critics argue) to the apostolic teaching recorded in the New Testament.

Plurality of Elders in the New Testament Church. Critics of the Roman Catholic Church argue that the visible New Testament church had no hierarchy, but each church was independent and congregational in form. There was no episcopal form of government, where a bishop was distinct from and had authority over elders. The New Testament had a plurality of elders and deacons in each church (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). Also, the terms bishop and elder refer to the same office (1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28). Roman Catholics argue that the authority of the apostles extended over all churches. Individual congregations were expected to follow the teachings of the apostles. This authority was passed through apostolic succession to subsequent bishops, especially the bishop of Rome (whereas in the Eastern Orthodox tradition the authority simply resided within the episcopate as a whole). The Roman church also points to the fact that the disciples of the apostles themselves embraced a hierarchy of authority. Polycarp, disciple of John, was referred to as “Bishop of the Smyrnaeans.” Ignatius, the first-century apostolic father, said, “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:89).

The Appearance of One Bishop over a Region. This informal and local episcopate gave way eventually to regional bishops and then to one bishop who was prime among the bishops, namely, the bishop of Rome. Eusebius speaks of “Silvanus, bishop of the churches about Emesa,” during the wicked reign of Emperor Diocletian (ca. 303). It is understandable that the growth of one church in an area might lead to many churches over which the bishop of the mother church would remain in charge. And Rome, being the largest and capital city of the empire, would naturally have a powerful and influential bishop.

The Inception of One Bishop over the Whole Church. Irenaeus (ca. 130–ca. 200) seems to have been a transition in this process, for he took a key step in the direction of an authoritative bishop, namely, the bishop of bishops in Rome. He stated, “That tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of the bishops.” For “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree [Latin, convenire] with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere” (Against Heresies 3.2, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1:415–16, emphasis added). Irenaeus spoke of a single bishop over a city, for he spoke of Polycarp as “bishop of the Church in Smyrna” (Against Heresies 3.4, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1:416). He also acknowledged that there was a line of bishops in Rome beginning with Linus (Against Heresies 3.3). Likewise, he believed there was at least a reflective sense of primacy in the bishop of Rome since, as capital of the empire, Rome reflected the churches everywhere.

Certainly by the time of Cyprian (third century), a more monarchial concept of bishop had evolved. For Cyprian insisted that “there is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord” (Epistle 39:5, in Roberts and Donaldson, 5:318).

The Appearance of Papal Authority to Formulate Creeds. Another step was taken in the emergence of the doctrine of the bishop of Rome in the late Middle Ages by the time of Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). He held that “there must be one faith for the entire Church. . . . This norm could not be followed unless every question arising out of faith were resolved by one having care over the whole Church. A new version of the creed, then, falls to the sole authority of the Pope, just as do all other matters affecting the whole church” (Summa Theologica 2a 2ae, q. 1, a. 10). However, Aquinas believed in the primacy of Scripture, for he affirmed that “the truth of faith is sufficiently plain in the teaching of Christ and the apostles” (2a 2ae, q. 1, a. 10). Further, “the truth of faith is contained in sacred Scripture, in diverse ways and, sometimes, darkly. . . . That is why there was a need to draw succinctly together out of the Scriptural teachings, some clear statements to be set before all for their belief. The symbol [i.e., creed] is not added to Scripture, but drawn from Scripture” (2a 2ae, q. 1, a. ). Indeed, Aquinas never repudiated his earlier statement that “we believe the successors of the apostles only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings” (On Truth 14.10–11). Likewise, the pope has the authority not to set forth new doctrines not found in Scripture but only to restate in clear form (e.g., by creeds) what the Scriptures teach.

The Pronouncement of the Infallible Authority of the Pope over the Whole Church. The final step in the evolution of the primacy of the Roman episcopacy came with the pronouncement of Pope Pius IX that the bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking from Peter’s chair (ex cathedra) on matters of faith and practice. This occurred at the First Vatican Council (1870). In the words of the Roman dogma itself, the council declared:

We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith . . . teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining a doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. (Denzinger, §1839, emphasis added)

This declaration of papal infallibility, apart from the other bishops, was the climax of centuries of increasing authority for the bishop of Rome and his successors. This represents a macro leap from the role of a bishop/elder in the New Testament as a local church leader to one God-appointed vicar of Christ over all Christian churches.

Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Before we look at distinctive doctrines of the Roman church, which differentiate Roman Catholics from Protestants and many other Christians, we need to focus on the many essential similarities in doctrine with all confessional sections of Christianity.

Doctrines Held in Common. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants hold many doctrines in common. The unity of the Christian Church consists of belief in one Bible, two Testaments, three creeds, four councils, and five centuries. These three creeds (Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedonian Creed) include the following sixteen teachings: (1) human depravity, (2) Mary’s virginity, (3) Christ’s purity (sinlessness), (4) Christ’s deity, (5) Christ’s humanity, (6) God’s unity, (7) God’s triunity, (8) the necessity of God’s grace, (9) the necessity of our faith, (10) Christ’s atoning death, (11) Christ’s bodily resurrection, (12) Christ’s bodily ascension, (13) Christ present priestly intercession, (14) Christ’s bodily return, (15) the divine inspiration of Scripture, and (16) the literal (historical-grammatical) interpretation of Scripture. A detailed discussion of these foundational doctrines is found elsewhere (Geisler and Rhodes, part 1).

The first fourteen items of this list are essential doctrines of the Christian faith, being necessary to make our salvation possible. The last two are essential as the source and means of obtaining the fourteen salvation essentials. These doctrinal similarities are too strong to place a non-Christian label on the essential doctrines of official Roman Catholicism.

Distinctive Doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Nonetheless, significant differences in both doctrine and practice separate Roman Catholics and Protestants. Protestants reject the following teachings of Rome: (1) the bodily assumption of Mary, (2) prayers to Mary, (3) prayers to other saints, (4) regarding Mary as co-redemptrix with Jesus, (5) veneration of images of Mary and other saints, (6) veneration of Mary, (7) transubstantiation (the changing of the bread and wine into the actual body of Christ), (8) worship of the consecrated host, (9) confession of sins to a priest, (10) doing penance to gain favor with God, (11) the sale of indulgences, (12) the treasury of merit, (13) belief in purgatory, (14) adding eleven apocryphal books to the canon of Scripture, (15) the infallibility of the pope, and (16) making good works necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent infallibly pronounced that “if anyone shall say . . . that the one justified by good works . . . does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life (if he should die in grace), and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema” (Denzinger, §842).

As can readily be seen, the differences between Protestants (evangelicals, especially) and Roman Catholics are neither few nor insignificant. Indeed, they form an unbridgeable barrier to any ecumenical unity between the two.

Distinctives of Protestants vis-à-vis Roman Catholics. What finally distinguishes Protestants from the Roman Church is the belief that salvation is derived from (1) the Bible alone (sola Scriptura), (2) based on the work of Christ alone (solus Christus), (3) achieved by grace alone (sola gratia), (4) received by faith alone (sola fide), and all for (5) the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria).

While Roman Catholics believe in the necessity of grace, they do not believe in the exclusivity of grace. It is the important word alone that distinguishes the Protestant view on all these points.

Bibliography. K. Adams, The Spirit of Catholicism; J. Armstrong, ed., Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us; Augustine, Against the Epistle of the Manichaeans and On Christian Doctrine; L. M. Bermejo, Infallibility on Trial; H. Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, rev. ed.; C. Castaldo, Holy Ground; Catechism of the Catholic Church; J. F. Clarkson et al., “The Vatican Council (1869–70),” in The Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English Translation; F. L. Cross, ed., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; H. Denzinger with K. Rahner, The Sources of Catholic Dogma; A. Dulles, “Infallibility: The Terminology,” in Teaching Authority; A. Flannery, Vatican Council II; N. Geisler and J. Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church?; N. Geisler and R. McKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences; N. Geisler and R. Rhodes, Conviction without Compromise; H. W. House, Charts of World Religions; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine; H. Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry, translated by E. Quinn; J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church; New Catholic Encyclopedia; M. Noll and C. Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism; L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma; J. Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism; A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols.; G. Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church; P. Schaff., ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, 14 vols.; W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church.

N. L. Geisler

ROSH HASHANAH (THE FEAST OF TRUMPETS). Rosh Hashanah (Hebrew, “the head of the year”) marks the beginning of the Jewish civil year. Outside Leviticus 23:23–25, the Feast of Trumpets is mentioned in two other passages in Scripture: Numbers 29:1–6 emphasizes the various sacrifices that were obligatory for this festival, and Nehemiah 8:1–12 states that the day when Ezra read the law of Moses before the people was “the first day of the seventh month,” the first day of the Feast of Trumpets.

Insofar as the biblical practice is concerned, four things should be mentioned. First, it was a one-day festival only, on the first day of the seventh month, Tishrei. Second, it was to be a day on which there was to be no labor; it was a day of rest like the Sabbath. Third, it was to be celebrated by the blowing of trumpets. Fourth, the “trumpet” was not the long silver trumpet of Numbers 10 but the horn of a ram, called the shofar. By Jewish law, horns of all kosher animals are permitted except for bulls, but the ram’s horn has been preferred because of its symbolic link with the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22.

Within Jewish practice, on this occasion the trumpet is blown in the synagogue. Jewish theology states three reasons for blowing the trumpet. First, it is a call to remembrance and repentance. Jews are called to return to practicing their religion. Second, the trumpet reminds Israel of its covenant relationship with God. Third, the ram’s horn is thought to confuse Satan on the day that he accuses Israel, based on Zechariah 3:1.

Bread is dipped in honey on this occasion to symbolize hope for a sweet year, for the civil new year begins. Apples are also dipped in honey, and a hot dish known as “honey carrots” is eaten. The festive meal of this occasion includes some type of a head meat. Sometimes it is a ram’s head, in memory of the sacrifice of Isaac, while other times it is a fish head, in the hope that Jews will be the “head” someday and not the “tail.” The popular fruits for this occasion are apples, grapes, and pomegranates.