A Theological Model for the Meaning of Life: A Critical ‎Evaluation of J. Edward Barrett’s Four-Dimensional ‎Framework

1. Statement of the Problem: The question of the meaning of life is one of the oldest and most fundamental inquiries of humanity, manifested in various forms since the inception of religious and philosophical thought, and currently confronting unprecedented contemporary challenges. This question is by no means a purely abstract or theoretical puzzle; rather, it is intricately woven into the deepest layers of human experience, including suffering and joy, hope and despair, faith and ethics, identity crises, death anxiety, and the pervasive sense of existential emptiness within a secularized world. Consequently, engaging with the meaning of life requires entering an inherently interdisciplinary domain that encompasses metaphysics and theology alongside psychology, sociology, and everyday lived experiences.
Within this discourse, J. Edward Barrett, through his four-dimensional framework, has attempted to bridge the gap between theology and the philosophy of meaning. However, this framework faces profound existential challenges such as nihilism, the problem of evil and suffering, and the reality of death and oblivion. Therefore, the central problem of the present paper is whether a structurally coherent and responsive theological model for the meaning of life can be formulated by critically building upon Barrett’s four-dimensional framework, drawing upon analytical theology, and incorporating the insights of thinkers such as Clifford Williams, Paul Tillich, John Hick, Richard Swinburne, and Viktor Frankl—a model that remains robust at the theoretical level while aligning with the lived religious and moral experiences of human beings.

Research Objectives: The primary objective of this article is to present and critically evaluate a theological model for the meaning of life based on J. Edward Barrett’s four-dimensional framework and the supplementary analyses offered by Clifford Williams. This model endeavors to demonstrate that the meaning of life cannot be sought exclusively at the level of individual psychology or philosophy, but must be understood and articulated in relation to God, religious traditions, and the broader context of human religious and moral experiences. The specific sub-objectives of this research include:

First: To precisely formulate the four dimensions of the model (the macro-theological dimension, the individual-existential dimension, the social-ethical dimension, and the eschatological dimension) and elucidate the interconnectedness among them.
Second: To evaluate the capacity of this model to respond to three monumental contemporary challenges: nihilism and absurdity, the problem of evil and suffering, and the problem of death and mortality.
Third: To delineate the practical applications of this model in the fields of applied ethics, spiritual mental health, and the analysis of daily religious practices such as prayer, worship, and collective participation.
Fourth: To emphasize the necessity of interdisciplinary dialogue among theology, philosophy, psychology, and the social sciences, as well as the importance of empirical research concerning meaning-making experiences to open new horizons for the theology of the meaning of life.
3. Research Methodology: The methodology executed in this  
research is a combination of descriptive-analytical, critical, and interdisciplinary approaches. First, utilizing a descriptive-analytical method, key concepts such as "meaning," "happiness," "purpose," and "value" are conceptually decoupled, and the distinctions between subjectivist and objectivist approaches are highlighted. Following this conceptual mapping, Barrett’s four-dimensional framework is expounded upon in complete detail. In the second stage, through a method of critique and evaluation, each of the four dimensions is critically gauged against the three main challenges. To achieve this, arguments from both proponents and opponents are extracted and analyzed, and empirical insights from positive psychology and logotherapy are utilized to evaluate the practical efficacy of the model. In the third stage, utilizing an hermeneutic-applied approach, the paper demonstrates how this theological model can be operationally implemented within the concrete lifeworld situations of religious believers.

Research Results: The results of this study can be categorized across theoretical, critical, and applied dimensions:

Theoretically: The article demonstrates that within a theological framework, the meaning of life is an objective and realistic concept; meaning that, independent of personal beliefs, human life can be objectively meaningful or meaningless in relation to God and the ultimate purpose of creation. Barrett's four-dimensional model, unlike reductive psychological or purely philosophical models, offers superior comprehensiveness because it simultaneously addresses "God and eschatology" alongside "individual duty and social solidarity." Furthermore, the distinction between "purpose" and "meaning" is clarified: while a life may possess a clear, specific purpose, that purpose lacks genuine, objective meaning if it does not align with the divine teleology.
Critically: When confronted with contemporary crises, the paper demonstrates that the theology of the meaning of life can provide a highly resilient response to nihilism. By recentering God, life is re-enchanted with meaning; as Tillich argues, faith has the capacity to conquer the anxiety of non-being. Regarding the problem of evil, the paper shows that while suffering may lack complete moral justification, it can be cogently framed within analytical theology—such as viewing suffering as a catalyst for soul-making (moral and spiritual growth), a byproduct of human free will, or a 
necessary counterpoint for a universe containing genuine love. This is further substantiated by Frankl's reflections on the Holocaust, proving that suffering itself can be transformed into a source for discovering deeper meaning. Regarding the problem of death, the hope of resurrection and eternal life provides the necessary eschatological horizon. Without this horizon, many moral acts and instances of human love appear futile in the face of inevitable annihilation; with it, earthly life is transfigured into a meaningful prelude to ultimate reality.
Practically: The article concludes that this theological model directly guides applied ethics: the value of a moral action is determined not merely by its immediate, worldly consequences, but by its orientation toward God and eternity. Thus, pursuing justice and self-sacrifice remains profoundly meaningful even if it culminates in short-term worldly failure. Secondly, believers who anchor their existential meaning in relation to God experience lower levels of death anxiety, exhibit higher resilience in the face of suffering, and report elevated levels of hope. Thirdly, daily religious experiences—such as prayer, formal worship, pilgrimage, and fasting—are shown to be objective structures of meaning that facilitate genuine intersections with the sacred, rather than empty rituals. Finally, the article underscores the vital necessity of an ongoing interdisciplinary dialogue between theology, empirical sciences (such as the cognitive science of religion and cognitive psychology), and the social sciences to measure theological insights against empirical data, thereby opening new horizons for the human understanding of meaning.