000			02598cam a22003257a 4500
001			16006582
003			AU-EpEBC
005			20120620180458.0
008			091203s2009 enk b 001 0 eng
010			_a 2009278011
015			_aGBA939183 _2bnb
016	7		_a015116686 _2Uk
020			_a9780567067135 (hbk.)
020			_a0567067130 (hbk.)
020			_a9780567266767 (pbk.)
020			_a0567266761 (pbk.)
035			_a(OCoLC)ocn319204829
040			_aUKM _cUKM _dBWKUK _dBWK _dBWX _dYDXCP _dDLC _dNEMB
042			_alccopycat
082	0	4	_a202.2/NEL
998			_bEW
100	1		_aNelson, Derek R.
245	1	0	_aWhat's wrong with sin? : _bsin in individual and social perspective from Schleiermacher to theologies of liberation / _cDerek R. Nelson.
260			_aLondon, UK ; _aNew York : _bT. and T. Clark, _cc2009.
300			_axii, 209 p. ; _bpbk ; _c25 cm.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (p. [189]-206) and index.
520			_aThis title examines two primary doctrines of sin, posited in the last half-century, the 'structural sin' type and the 'relational self' type. After an introduction to the current discussion on the doctrine of sin, two 19th century rejections of individualistic conceptions of sin are exposited and critiqued. Chapter 2 details Albrecht Ritschl's critique ('structural sin') of F.D.E. Schleiermacher on sin, and Chapter 3 examines John Nevin's critique ('relational self') of Charles Finney's view of sin as violation of the moral government. These two chapters provide a map for reading 20th century doctrines of social sin, contained in the rest of the book. Chapter 4 tracks the development of Latin American liberation theologies of sin, including extensive analyses of Gutierrez, Segundo, Boff. Chapter 5 is an analysis of feminist and womanist writings on sin, including in-depth treatments of Suchocki, Ruether. Criticisms of these thinkers are categorized according to both the structural sin and relational self types.Finally, Chapter 6 offers an analysis of selected developments in doctrines of sin from Asian Christian theologians, especially Korean Minjung theology as a further exemplification of the structural sin type. The book concludes with recommendations drawn from the preceding analyses for further understanding of the social dimensions of sin: the need for clarifying the agential status of a 'social structure'; the moral culpability of a relational self; and, a call to integrate the structural sin and relational self types into a future doctrine of social sin.
650		0	_aSin.
942			_2ddc
999			_c13024 _d13024