Hebrews has a distinctive christology denoting Christ’s particular priesthood. The fact that Jesus is not qualified in anyway to be a priest according the Aaronic order is inevitable. Therefore, the author composed an argument that the foundation of Christ’s priesthood is the order of Melchizedek. This article seeks to examine how the Hebrew’s author recognize, interpret, and utilize the character of Melchizedek to build his unique priesthood christology. The efforts are made by interpreting Hebrews 7:1-10, in which the author shows the significance of the Melchizedek’s figure to the Jesus’ priesthood. First, this article investigates how the author of Hebrews uses Melchizedek mysterious character in Genesis and Psalm are echoed in verses 1-3 and then examine the christology of priesthood developed in verses 4-10. Basically the character of Melchizedek was still shrouded in mystery even to the end of the study. However, precisely in this mystery we can see how ingenious the author is.

In the apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians, one of the principal theological debate sticking to the surface is the status as children of Abraham through circumcision. Because according to a group of Jews Christian who came to Galatia, Gentile Christians shall be circumcised, and implement the law, if they want to obtain salvation. Because safety is only given to those who become the children of Abraham in full.On the other hand, Paul rejected that obligation. According to Paul, by faith in Christ, the son of Abraham, Christians in Galatia, having status as the children of Abraham and inherit the blessings of God’s promise that is salvation. In this article I argue that the debate was due on the one hand, Jewish Christian groups that cling to the tradition of circumcision because of the tradition that has been in effect since Abraham and believed to be the way of salvation, while Paul emphasis on faith and obey the decision of the council in Jerusalem that circumcision is not required for the non-Jewish.

Using a recent case study, I am going to show which realities might demand adjusting research methods during every step of ethnographic field research. I am going to show that one can not be equipped with all research methods in advance. I will demonstrate via the progression of my own research why it is necessary to continuously adjust research methods to the broader situation even if it might be quite difficult. The case I present is taken from my most recent research amongst members in charismatic Pentecostal churches on Java, Indonesia. The relationship between my informants and me is evaluated. In my case study, it was necessary to recognize the importance of the cultural peculiarities of the Javanese language, in spite of the fact that Indonesian was spoken. Also the urban research field demanded special methodology. And last, but not least, the pressure informants put on me by treating me as a possible proselyte demanded an unexpected sensitive approach.

Advancing from his criticism against two principal theological theories of religion, namely: (1) cognitive-propositional theory and (2) experiential-expressive theory, George A. Lindbeck proposes his cultural-linguistic theory as an alternative theory which is deemed more adequate in comprehending plurality of religions. Regrettably, for some, Lindbeck’s theory is considered rather as a closure to any interreligious dialogue, as a consequence of its superfl uous emphasis on the incommensurability and untranslability amongst different religions. Therefore, within this modest article, taking into account several insights from postcolonial studies, I try to venture a critical appreciation on how Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic theory might contribute to the endeavour of fostering constructive, authentic, and profound interreligious dialogue. I attempt to argue that Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic theory, instead of imparting a cul-de-sac to any interreligious dialogue, actually lay bare a path for the dialogue. A path which is, whilst hard and steep, viable.

Today in the globalization process the poor is marginalized. This reflection is based on the Indonesian context of economic dependence and marginalization of the poor and the powerless. The analysis goes to axes of power namely state, market, and community. Market fundamentalism has penetrated into all kinds of powers in such a way that the powerless is excluded from the economic participation. The economic system is taking sides against the need of the poor people. The way of life of the early Christian gives an example how people live in common. The teaching of Jesus stresses very much on the preferential option of the poor. The idea of the globalization from below and the multitude might be a help to move forward to face the problem of social injustice in all areas and levels.

The main thesis of this article is to present the phenomenon of globalization about cultural change (and economic) that gives effect to the “religion” and religious practice. Secularization as part of globalization and modernization, affecting cultural relations and “religion” in the region. Forms of religious practices which was appointed as the impact of globalization is privatization, fundamentalism, and the commodification of religion. Kwok Pui-Lan as an Asian postcolonial feminist theologians criticize globalization as a form of colonization with a new face that oppresses women and children. In the context of Asia with a diversity of religious and extreme poverty, how theology can provide a role in public life. Religion can not be separated from other social relations (especially cultural) as stated classic secularization theory. Thus the award to religious pluralism and inter-faith spirituality to be very important to build religiosity that appreciate coexsistence.