J.W. Wartick

Universalism and Lutheran Anti-Rationalism: A way forward?

I’ve written already on The Foolishness of God: The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther. I found quite a bit of stimulating discussion within it. Here, I want to focus on the concept of grace and election in Lutheranism and essentially turn Becker’s argument around to see whether it could be used to argue for universalism rather than to simply punt the question of why some are not saved.

The Lutheran Positions on Humanity and God’s Will

There’s a section of the book called simply, “Antirationalism in the Lutheran Doctrine of Conversion.” Here, Becker argues that Lutherans should believe definitionally in humans being completely dead in spiritual things to the point where Lutherans could be seen as basically affirming total depravity. To this end, Becker quotes the Formula of Concord, directly from the Lutheran Confessions:

“[I]n spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate… are utterly unable, by their own natural powers to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything… there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining… by which… [people] can accept offered grace…” (quoted in Becker, 201). On these points, Lutheranism appears to be Calvinism when it comes to the total inability of humankind to respond to, prepare for, or in any other way be credited for any aspect of saving faith.

Alongside this, however, Lutherans also, if they remain convinced by the Lutheran Confessions, “emphatically defend… the universal will of grace… It would be almost unthinkable that [anyone] call [themselves] a Lutheran and not accept the doctrines of universal atonement, universal reconciliation, and universal grace” (203). Despite this, Becker flatly states that all Lutherans and all evangelical Christians reject universalism. There’s no reason given for this rejection[note 1, below]. Thus, Becker’s position is left an unenviable question: why are some saved and not others? Indeed, this was a question I asked quite a bit as I was attempting to work out where I thought I stood on a number of theological questions, oscillating through a number of positions while still being amenable to the Lutheran one.

Becker’s Answer

Becker first outlines the situation in a series of simple charts contrasting numbers denoting how much God wills one to be saved vs. humanity’s resistence to salvation. Calvinism has 100 for humans resisting with 110 for God’s willing some and 90 for God’s willing others, resulting in some humans being saved (110) or not (90) depending on God’s will. Arminianism’s example has God’s willing 100, with human resistance being 90 for some and 110 for others, resulting in some humans being saved (90 resistance) and some not (110). “True Lutheranism” (Becker’s words) has both sides at 100.

So if God’s will and human resistance are at exacting odds, what explains salvation? For Becker, the “real Lutheran” answer is basically ‘we have no idea.’ He writes:

“Synergism, the doctrine that [humans] cooperate, even if only in the lightest degree… in conversion, was Melanchthon’s solution to this difficulty, and most modern Lutherans follow his lead[note 2]. But true historic Lutheranism holds that synergism is ‘the answer of reason.’ Yet true Lutheranism just as vehemently rejects every proposition which would establish either a ‘special grace’ or an ‘irresistable grace’ for the elect. In doing so, it finds itself in a rationally impossible dilemma.
“Because it is convinced that this is the teaching of Scripture, which does not explain the mystery, Lutheranism has simply resolved not to explain it either” (205).

Lutherans are generally inclined to appeal to mystery when there are things unexplainable within theology or doctrine, and I am not really opposed to that. Indeed, there is great appeal there. To assume we can know the intricacies of everything about God, assuming God exists and is infinite, is absurd on its face. So when we see things that are possibly contradictory but seem like they ought to be held, I do not really balk at holding them in tension and acknowledging the mystery of the same. So I do not fault Becker for this appeal. If one holds that the premises of Lutheranism are true AND that some are not saved, then appeal to holding these doctrines in tension and assuming they’re all true but that the way they are true is a mystery to humans isn’t, in my opinion, an invalid move. While I know Lutherans are not infrequently the butt of jokes for their appeals to mystery, I personally think this is both a more honest move and a better move than attempting to fully explain the intricacies of God’s workings. However, I also think that Becker’s imagination is limited by his theological precommitments here.

Lutheran Antirationalism Applied in Defense of Universal Salvation

Here’s the rub: could one not use Becker’s view of Luther’s anti-rationalism when it comes to theology and judging the Bible in order to support rather than reject universalism? Consider again the issue at hand: according to Lutheran theology [and using Becker’s arbitrary numbers], human nature is fallen and resisting God and turning away from salvation at 100 strength. Meanwhile, God wills all humans to be saved and even provided for that salvation, also at 100 strength. But why say that God’s will is only at 100 strength, why not also 110, outweighing the resistance? Lutheran theology, according to Becker, already includes the notion that God absolutely wills all people to be saved. So why doesn’t God get what God wants? As the infinitely powerful creator of the universe, doesn’t it seem odd that God would will all people to be saved and even provide the means by which they will be saved, and yet some are not saved?

Becker’s answer is the appeal to mystery–we just don’t know, and we simply hold in tension the apparently contradictory concepts in a kind of both-and relationship. But couldn’t we simply flip the script? The anti-rationalism involved here, then, is not in punting to mystery to explain why some are saved and not others. Instead, it is in appealing to antirationalism (or mystery) to explain why there are some passages that seem to suggest that some people are lost despite God’s universal salvific will and universal atonement through the Cross.[3] So on this view, instead of juxtaposing “God wills all are saved” and “Some are not saved” and holding those two premises in tension with each other, we are juxtaposing the propositions: “God wills all to be saved” and “There are some teachings in the Bible that appear to say some are not saved.” One can fully affirm that those passages teach Hell[4] and even that they teach it as a place populated eternally. But the tension here is the both and that we affirm that teaching even while affirming that God’s will for all to be saved actually comes to fruition. How is that possible? It’s a mystery, but, as Siegbert writes, “Because it is convinced that this is the teaching of Scripture, which does not explain the mystery, Lutheranism has simply resolved not to explain it either” (205).

Not So Hasty

There are a few counter-arguments here I’d like to briefly acknowledge. The first is the charge that universalism here is being presented in the Lutheran context, and it is essentially a rationalist answer to a question that Scripture doesn’t answer. That is, speaking along the same lines as Becker/Luther, Scripture does teach that God wants all to be saved and even provided for that salvation, but to insist upon actually affirming all are saved is a rationalist conclusion, using human reason to trump other Scriptural teaching [eg. on hell] or to go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. In reply, it seems clear that the antirationalist Lutheran who attempts to affirm that some end up in hell is stuck with a very similar problem. After all, the only reason they are rejecting universalism, which does have clear passages teaching it in Scripture[5], is because they are reasoning and choosing to affirm some end up in hell as a stronger teaching of Scripture than that of universalism. Indeed, these non-universalists are reasoning that instead of teaching universalism, these passages only teach that God wants all people to be saved and has provided for that salvation. This is just as much a use of reason over Scripture as the contrary. Indeed, how does one really get out of choosing one of the options, with each being taught in Scripture? And since Becker himself admits that the Lutheran position is that God wills and has provided for all to be saved, why not embrace the absurdity of simply admitting that “therefore all are indeed saved, despite some apparent contradictory evidence”?

The second line of counter-argument is that my argument above is an unjustified use of the Lutheran position. Very often Lutheranism holds to both-and statements where Calvinist, Baptist, or other theology picks either-or. One clear example is that of Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper. Whereas Calvinism and Baptist theology each insist upon an either present and detectable or not present and symbolic, Lutheranism teaches that Christ both is present and yet the bread and wine still remain. How is this true? Because Christ made the promise to be present there, and God breaks no promises. And how is that true when we cannot detect that presence? Because God said so. So for this counter-argument against universalism, the both-and is that both God wants all to be saved and yet some are not saved. However, there is nothing in Becker’s argument, nor in any specifically Lutheran position on this that I’m aware of, that suggests we cannot instead shift the both-and to is is true both that all are saved and God’s will succeeds and that Scripture teaches some are lost. How does this work? Because God’s will always succeeds and God’s promises to those who have had salvation provided for them (by Becker’s own admission, this means everyone) will not be broken.[6]

Obvious Other Possibility

Despite strong modern links between conservative Lutheranism and the modern doctrine of inerrancy, one obvious possibility within Lutheranism regarding universalism is to simply deny inerrancy and affirm a strong view of Scripture that isn’t bogged down by the modern invention of that doctrine. This has clear and repeated historic precedent in Lutheran theology, whether it was the questioning of books as canonical (including James and Revelation) by Luther and Lutherans early on or into later Reformers or even theologians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer or any number of German and American [and presumably elsewhere, though I’m not familiar enough to say so] Lutherans into today. For these Lutherans, one can simply accept the teaching that Becker strongly affirms just is basic Lutheranism: that God wants all to be saved and has provided the means for them to be saved and affirm universalism to basically make a set of non-contradictory doctrinal beliefs. In this case, the supposed clear teachings of Scripture that some are condemned to hell are simply mistaken or perhaps misinformed.

There is some obvious appeal to this strategy. For one, it eliminates the need to take an anti-rationalist or, minimally, a mysterian approach to affirm seemingly contradictory doctrines. For another, it eliminates the difficulty of trying to affirm teachings on hell that seem to be blatantly against God’s will in other passages. However, embracing an anti-inerrancy in Lutheranism simply to affirm universalism would clearly be a rationalist approach to the problem and perhaps then fall victim to the arguments to that effect. On the flip side, if Lutherans wish to simply follow what has long been the position of Lutherans throughout time–that of affirming the Bible as the authority on doctrinal teaching without rising the Bible up to the position of being on par with God as inerrancy does–this charge will not stick.

Whatever the case may be on this, even if it is mistaken, the anti-rationalist Lutheran defense of universalism seems possible.

A Final, Different Anti-Rationalist Defense

Adapting Becker’s nomenclature, he proposes {God 100% wills all humans are saved <=> Humans 100% resist being saved} as the Lutheran position. Thus, the question remains: how/why are some saved and not others?

However, it seems we could easily introduce a third part of this equation: {God 100% wills all humans are saved <=> Humans 100% resist being saved <=> all are saved}. Thus the question is “how are all saved?” and the answer is the same appeal to mystery Becker offers for his equation above. Really the only counter to this from the Lutheran perspective seems to be that you need to include a fourth part of the equation: {God 100% wills all humans are saved <=> Humans 100% resist being saved <=> all are saved <=> some are not saved}. This, however, would mean the Lutheran who is against universalism must defend the fourth term: that some are not saved. And since we both cannot know the mind of God and since Lutheranism is generally very keen to avoid making specific claims about the eternal ends of people and since Lutheranism allows for anti-rationalism in soteriology, at least according to Siegbert, this presents an enormous problem. Because even if the fourth term is defensible on a Lutheran view (and I genuinely believe any such defense would likely skew towards Calvinism or Arminianism instead of Lutheranism), one could simply affirm them all and say the blatantly contradictory terms are true and that we just don’t know how or why. And perhaps that means one affirms merely a “soft” or “hopeful” universalism, but it seems obvious that it could not entirely exclude universalism from the equation.

Conclusion

It seems to me that Becker’s explanation of salvation from a Lutheran perspectie is fairly accurate, but lacks theological imagination. For whatever reason, Becker has simply limited his perspective on what options are available for Lutherans to answer the question of why are some saved and not others. One possible answer is simply: all are saved. I should note I’m not claiming this is a distinctively Lutheran answer, nor am I claiming it is one that has deep roots in the Lutheran tradition. My main and basically only claim is that universalism simply is a possibility on Lutheran theology, and that supposed anti-rationalism when it comes to things like soteriology in Lutheranism can be applied to support it.

More interestingly, though, is the fact that it seems Lutheranism lends itself to this support. Is it possible that Lutheranism can be uniquely suited to affirm universalism, even for those who want to maintain affirmation of doctrines like inerrancy or of hell? It certainly seems so. The richness of Lutheran tradition is filled with both-ands. Here, we might affirm both that God desires all to be saves and that God succeeds at doing so.

Notes

[1] I suspect it is some sort of latent and inaccurate understanding of church history as seeing universalism as heretical despite it being affirmed by some of the most orthodox names in early Christianity (people like Gregory of Nyssa). There are a number of studies on universalism in Christian theology that demonstrate it was perhaps the majority position of the earliest church, and that multiple strands of Christianity preserved or reaffirmed the doctrine throughout history with little allegedly heretical fallout accompanying it.

[2] I’m quite curious about this side comment about “most modern Lutherans” following the lead of Melanchthon here. While Melanchthon is vehemently condemned in a lot of conservative Lutheran circles for a number of reasons, there are very few Lutherans I’m aware of who would appeal to synergism for… anything. And I’m being inclusive of conservative through progressive Lutherans here. If one claims to be Lutheran, synergism is typically out. I admit to not being knowledgeable enough of Melanchthon himself to know if he claimed synergism. Anyway, to me this claim of Siegbert’s needed quite the citation, and has nothing to back it up. Of course, he was also writing in a different time period (the book was published originally in 1982), so maybe whatever context he was in made it feel a reasonable statement to make.

[3] And this is, of course, assuming that we are reading those passages correctly. One universalist method of interpreting those passages is to see them as warning passages–calling on the Law to provoke people toward God or Godly living. I am not personally convinced of this, though I see it as a possible valid move.

[4] And here one could even affirm some kind of eternal conscious torment as the actual teaching of Scripture, despite much, much evidence to the contrary. Here, tipping my hand, it seems a much more likely reading of these passages is annihilationism or “conditional immortality” rather than eternal conscious punishment. It’s not my purpose here to argue for this, however, as it is not relevant to the point at hand. Instead, I’d direct readers towards arguments making the exegetical case for that position, such as Edward Fudge’s The Fire that Consumes.

[5] Romans 14:11 cf. Isaiah 45:23. In the latter, YHWH is speaking and swears that every knee will bow to YHWH. There are no exclusions. In the Romans passage this text is glossed with the same implication.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

The Inescapable Reality of Our Era

Heinrich Ott’s Reality and Faith: The Theological Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a book I picked up because of how oft-cited (favorably or not) I found it in the literature. I have just begun reading it and already found it to be insightful. Early on, Ott writes about Bonhoeffer’s confrontation with his own life and the era in which he lived with the rise of the Third Reich in Germany and awaiting its overthrow, expecting God to act:

“The reality of our life, the reality of our experiences, is inescapable. We cannot flee from it, we cannot flee from the era in which we are placed, from the convictions of this era or from its historical entanglements. On one thing Bonhoeffer was quite clear, that he must stand firm through a demonic age, but he found his place in this very age and did not hanker after living in any other…
“But if God lives and if Jesus Christ is his final word, then this might be as inescapable as life itself…. If God lives everywhere, Bonhoeffer deduced, he lives here” (19-20).

God lives with us even in our inescapable moments. Even as we know we are entangled with our own history and caught up in the convictions and shifting whims of our times. Even if we believe our own era has its great evils and may even be “demonic” in whatever way we believe. There God is and remains.

May we, too, find ourselves living such that we realize that even in our own time, in our inescapable reality, God is here.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Dietrich Bonhoeffer– read all my posts related to Bonhoeffer and his theology.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Faithful Politics: Ten Approaches to Christian Citizenship and Why it Matters” by Miranda Zapor Cruz

Faithful Politics: Ten Approaches to Christian Citizenship and Why it Matters by Miranda Zapor Cruz provides an introduction to several different ways Christians have engaged in the political arena.

A few introductory chapters outline Cruz’s approach. Instead of taking a direct partisan line, she seeks to provide overviews of the ten approaches she covers and then give some analysis for each broad approach to Christian life in politics. One early insight is contrasting Christian and broadly American concepts of freedom: “American freedom conceptualizes freedom as for self; the Kingdom conceptualizes freedom for others” (15). This latter insight is backed by theologians such as Bonhoeffer, who wrote about explicitly being free for the sake of the other in Christianity (ibid).

After several broad comments on general guidelines for analyzing political approaches from within Christian perspectives, Cruz turns to the 10 approaches she covers. These are sometimes grouped together, and I’ll list them as grouped: three separationist approaches based on “Keeping the Kingdom out of the Country” (essentially approaches that advocate for Christians separating from public life in various ways in order to demark a clear separation between “the world” and church); two separationist approaches based on “Keeping the Country out of the Kingdom” (these are approaches like early Baptist separationism based upon keeping church and state separate, less than actually splintering from society itself); social gospel approaches (using one’s faith to guide society, ethics, and even spending programs); two Calvinist approaches (contrasting direct Christian influence on society a la Geneva and John Calvin and a more nuanced approach from Abraham Kuyper); dominionist approaches (the teaching that Christians must gain dominion over society and how this applies to political spheres); and Christian Nationalism (a view which puts faith in Christ essentially subordinate to allegiance to the nation-state).

Summarizing all of these is beyond the scope of what I want to do. Highlights include the look at Two Kingdoms separationist approaches and how Lutheranism was co-opted through that view for Fascism, but how Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor, went back to nuance of the Two Kingdom approach to fight back (101). I thought the insight into social gospel approaches and the several Anabaptist approaches was fascinating. Cruz’s evaluation of the different approaches constantly offered fruitful ground for thought and comment. For example, in her analysis of Christian nationalism, she writes, “physical and rhetorical violence are endemic to Christian nationalism, which is part of what makes it incompatible with Christian faithfulness…” (189). The constant rhetoric of modern nationalists that challenges people opposed to them to define Christian nationalism and show how it is bad would run into a wall when confronted with the basic quotes from Christian nationalists and analysis by Cruz here. Cruz’s analysis isn’t always negative, of course. For example, despite clearly not advocating for a separationist approach, Cruz writes that: “Anabaptist and evangelical approaches to separationism have their strongest appeals in their ability to clearly differentiate between the church and the world, and their commitment to Christian formation as an essential function of the church. We are all being discipled by something…” (81). These kinds of insightful comments from Cruz make the book incredibly valuable.

The book would absolutely serve well for a reading group of Christians who wanted to discuss how to interact with Christianity and politics, or even just looking at one single approach and diving more deeply from there.

Faithful Politics is an insightful, timely book. It provides readers with enough background on numerous options in Christian living to at least get a grasp on key concepts. It also provides ways forward for continued thought and research. Recommended.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

“The Foolishness of God” by Siegbert W. Becker- An engaging struggle

Many years ago, when I was deep into apologetics and trying to figure out my place in the world and in my faith, my dad gifted me with a copy of The Foolishness of God: The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther by Siegbert W. Becker. Well, a lot has changed since then, and I am still trying to figure out my place in the world and in my faith, but I am much more skeptical of apologetics than I was then… to say the least. I re-read The Foolishness of God now, probably more than a decade after my original reading. It was fascinating to see my scrawling notes labeling things as ridiculous or wrong when I now basically think a lot of it is right. On the flip side, I still have quite a bit to critique. I’ll offer some of my thoughts here, from a viewpoint of a progressive Lutheran.

Becker starts by quoting several things Luther says about reason, from naming it “the devil’s bride” to being “God’s greatest and most important gift” to humankind (1). How is it possible that reason can be a great evil, vilest deceiver of humanity while also being one of the most enlightening parts of human existence? One small part of Luther’s–as Becker interprets him–answer is that it depends on what reason is being used for. That’s a simplistic answer, though, suggesting one could categorize things like nature and science (reason is good!) and judging biblical truth (reason is bad!) into neat boxes for Luther. In some ways, this can be done; but in others, when one digs more deeply, it becomes clear that such an application would be an okay rule of thumb for reading Luther but would not be accurate all the way through. For example, where Luther sees the Bible teaching directly on nature or science, using reason to judge that teaching would be rejected. This, of course, opens up my first and probably greatest point of disagreement with Luther’s theses about reason. And yet, it also is confusing, because in some ways I’m not sure I wholly disagree.

What I mean by this is that I, too, am skeptical of the use of human reason for any number of… reasons. This is especially true when it comes to thinking about God. Supposing it is true that there is a God and that God is an infinite being in any way–whether it is infinitely good, infinitely powerful, etc. In that case, it seems that to suggest that we can use reason to grasp things about God is a fool’s errand. We are not infinite and can certainly not grasp the infinite; how can we expect our brains that cannot contain the multitudes to reason around God? On the other hand, in many ways reason is all we have. Even supposing God exists, we ultimately act or believe in ways and things we think are reasonable. And I’m deeply skeptical of a denial of this. What I mean by the latter is that I simply do not believe that people can believe things they think are inherently anti- or irrational. Becker outright makes the claim that Luther–and presumably Becker himself–do believe such things. Time and again, Becker flatly states that some claims of Christianity are inherently contradictory–be it the Trinity, the Incarnation, or [for Lutherans] Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper. So Becker is claiming that Luther truly did believe in things he thought were inherently anti-reason and irrational. But when push comes to shove, I strongly suspect that Luther and people like him who make these claims think that it imminently reasonable to believe in the irrational. Even while claiming that they believe in things they claim they think are contradictory, they are doing so because it makes sense to them. And this is precisely because of the limitations of human reason and thinking. We cannot go beyond our own head, we have to go with what we think is right, perhaps even while claiming we think it is irrational to do so.

Setting aside that question, Luther’s solution to the gap between the finite and the infinite is that of revelation. Because God became incarnate and came to humanity, we, too, can know God. God revealed God to us. Becker rushes to use this to attempt to counter what he calls Neo-orthodox interpretations that stack the Bible against Christ. He writes, “Neo-orthodoxy’s distinction between faith in Christ and faith in statements, or ‘faith in a book,’ is artificial and contrary to reason. By rejecting ‘propositional revelation’ and making the Bible only a ‘record of’ and ‘witness to’ revelation, the neo-orthodox theologians drain faith of its intellectual content” (11). I find this deeply ironic wording in a book that later has Becker outright claiming that Luther–and by extension Becker himself–believed things that are contrary to reason and affirming that this is a perfectly correct (we dare not say “reasonable”) thing to do. In my opinion, at least, it is quite right to make the distinction between faith in Christ and faith in statements. That doesn’t mean the Bible is devoid of revelation or can have no revelation; rather, it means that, as Luther put it [paraphrasing here], the Bible is the cradle of Christ. But to put the Bible then on par with Christ as a similarly perfect revelation is to make a massive mistake, as people, including Lutherans like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, have argued.

All of this might make it seem I have a largely negative outlook on Becker’s work. Far from it. I found it quite stimulating and generally convincing on a number of points. Most of it, of course, is exegesis of Luther’s own views of reason. And I think that Luther, while he could stand to be far more systematic and clear, makes quite a few excellent points about reason. When it comes to trying to draw near to God, reason does not do well. Why? Our own era has so many arguments in philosophy of religion about the existence of God. Anyone who has read or engaged with the minutiae of analytic theology or analytic philosophy getting applied to God has experienced what I think, in part, Luther was warning against. Philosophers, apologists, and theologians continue to attempt to plumb the very nature of God and gird it up with scaffolds of reason, providing any number of supposed arguments for God’s existence, proofs of Christological points, and the like. Bonhoeffer, a favorite theologian of mine, put many of these attempts to shame in a succinct quote: “A God who could be proved by us would be an idol.”

I think a similar sentiment applies to so much about God and even just the universe. I mean, we’re on a planet that is less than a speck in a cosmos that is so unimaginably huge and ancient that thinking we can comprehend it is honestly shocking. Sure, we can slap numbers on it, using our human reason to try to slice the universe into chewable bites, but when we find out things like how it takes more than 1 million Earth’s to fill the Sun, and that our Sun isn’t even remotely the largest star, nor the largest solar system, etc… how absurd is it to think we really comprehend any of it? And so, for me, from a very different angle, Luther’s words about reason make sense. Sure, we can use it to try to understand little slices of nature. But when we start to line it up with things of the infinite, it may be better to just let God be God.

The Foolishness of God is a fascinating, engaging, and sometimes frustrating work. In a lot of ways, it’s like engaging with Luther’s own works. It’s not systematic; it doesn’t cohere; it’s intentionally provocative. I will likely give it another read one day, and who knows where I–and it–shall stand?

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Dietrich Bonhoeffer– read all my posts related to Bonhoeffer and his theology.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Reconstructing the Past: Florrisant Fossil Beds National Monument and Young Earth Creationism

Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument preserves an incredible piece of geological and paleontological time in Colorado. The uniqueness of its geologic history helped preserve incredible details of tiny animals, all the way down to insects, including one of the most famous fossils in the world: a butterfly’s imprint preserved in ash. What struck me most as I wandered this beautiful National Monument and learned more about it was how intricately we can construct the past in this region. Geologists and paleontologists are able to use the clues spread across the landscape to see what happened in great detail. Those details, however, either directly contradict or at least present major difficulties for the narrative told by some Christians known as young earth creationists. Here, we will examine the two narratives alongside the region itself and ask which presents a better picture of the past.

The Narrative told by Conventional Geology and Paleontology

The National Park Service actually has a wonderful video that tells about how Florissant was formed, along with how it was discovered, used, and preserved by humans. My own narrative of conventional science is largely based on that video as well as on placards and other things I read and observed around the site itself.

About 37 million years ago, a volcano’s crater exploded, covering the region with ash. Volcanic activity continued for millions of years, forming layers of ash across the region. Eventually, heavy rainfall dislodged a massive amount of this ash, creating a kind of avalanche of volcanic material known as a lahar. This fast-moving mudflow was enormous, stretching for miles as it spread and eventually covering about 15 feet of the area we now know as the area within Florissant. This mud covered the bottoms of a number of enormous trees, which eventually died and decomposed. Life recovered and the region began to grow again, but another lahar blocked a stream and that stream formed a shallow lake across the area. The water that covered the area had deposited minerals into the ash-covered stumps of these trees, eventually preserving them as petrified wood. Meanwhile, diatoms–tiny algae observable on a microscopic level that persist into today–bloomed in massive quantities in the lake. Along with occasional volcanic eruptions that layered ash in the lake, the diatom blooms dying off also formed layers at the bottom of the lake. These layers alternated (not in a specific pattern), eventually forming paper-thin shale.

As creatures like fish, birds and even insects died and settled to the bottom of the lake, they were covered with these layers of diatoms and ash. Their bodies were mineralized, and to this day paleontologists can chip apart these incredibly thin layers of shale and find one of the richest deposits of well-preserved insect and plant life in the entire world. Large mammals also roamed the region, including brontotheres, an extinct rhinocerous-like mammal whose bones can be found across the area and into the Badlands. Their bones can also be found. Volcanic activity can be mapped across the region by observing directly the path of lava flows that have hardened into rock. Additionally, distant mountains can be seen to have blown off their tops in volcanic activity of that same time period, demonstrating the violent geologic past of the area.

The uniqueness of this site is due to the many factors involved in its formation: the volcanic activity that led to a lahar covering and preserving enormous ancient trees (including the largest petrified trees by diameter in the entire world); another lahar blocking a stream; additional volcanic activity that mostly spewed ash instead of lava in the area, allowing for preservation of fossils as the ash was cooled and settled in the water; intense periods of diatom activity due to whatever nutrients were provided by rich volcanic soil and plant deposits. For all of these, geologists can quite literally trace lines across the region and map where lava flows hit, where ash fell, whence came some of the volcanic activity (I had a park ranger literally point to the distance at a group of mountains; when looking more closely at the mountains later in the trip, you could see how they were partially collapsed from their volcanic past, blowing parts of themselves almost 100 miles across the landscape), and more. These were observable evidences of a past that linked all of these facets together to create the world-famous fossil site. It was incredible to see how well geologists could use the tools at their disposal to tell the story of the ancient past.

One last broad point in this section: the paleontological record here shows a dramatically different world than what we see in the same region today. The brontotheres are obviously extinct as we don’t see them anymore, but another facet of the discussion is that while the insects look incredibly similar to those of today, there are many with key differences that have changed over the 30+ million years since they were preserved. Some of them aren’t extinct and live into today, but in entirely different parts of the world. One prominently displayed fossil was of a tsetse fly, which once inhabited the land we now know as Colorado, but today lives in tropical Africa. The climate, in other words, has changed so dramatically that this kind of fly can no longer live in the snowy peaks of Colorado, but we have a record of its having done so in a past that was much warmer, and the other fossils in the area confirm the same observations. Conventional timelines don’t have difficulty explaining this, as the long timespan involved allowed for plate tectonics, glacier movement, ice age(s), and more to impact the climate.

Young Earth Creationism’s Two (or more) Narratives

Before diving too far into the narrative told by young earth creationism, we must realize that that movement itself is not monolithic. For a believe system that claims to be the plain reading of the Bible and that can be understood quite simply, it actually ends up teaching incredibly complex and continually edited narratives about the past. Its practitioners disagree on timelines and on how Earth’s geological history formed. So to tell a narrative of Florissant from that perspective, I have to do so knowing that there could be any number of “well, actually” type statements. That said, I believe that death by a thousand caveats is an issue that plagues young earth creationism generally. As YECs have to continually edit their narratives to try to force evidence to fit into a specific favored timeline, the constant ad hoc amendments serve to show just how mistaken YEC is generally. There are at least two broad narratives YECs could offer for Florissant.

The Noah’s Flood Narrative[s]

The Noahic Deluge truly did cover the entire surface of the Earth. In doing so, it churned up enormous amounts of dirt and sediment, remaking it and setting down virtually all sediment layers that we see across the entire Globe. An alternate version of this has a more tranquil Flood, which settled over the surface of the Earth but didn’t greatly impact the geologically observed history. This latter theory is largely abandoned in the literature as it has no explanation for the many aspects of geologic history we see to this day. The former is beset with difficulties, but the one I want to highlight here is that if we assume this is what happened, places like Florissant are almost entirely nonsensical. How would a churning Flood lay down deposits that happen to align in such ways that they can be traced across a region and layered, such that we can see a lahar covered the region, then another blocked a stream, forming a lake, volcanic lava flowed across nearby, and more, and more? It seems to be a non-starter. Why would random bits of sediment get deposited in ways that suggest a geologic past?

The Post-Flood Deposits Narrative

Increasingly, thoughtful YECs are being forced to draw lines to designate pre- and post-Flood deposits in the geologic record. There are a number of reasons for this, but one of the most obvious is that we can see geologic deposits being made today, so the obvious question is asked about how far into the past these records extend before one hits layers that were set down by a supposed global Flood. Many of the difficulties with the YEC narrative in which the Flood explains Florissant are assuaged by claiming that those deposits really were set down in the manner described, but that they were done so in a much more condensed timeline than mainstream geology teaches.

Going along with this, some YECs have suggested the Flood itself is responsible for almost none of the geologic record or, perhaps, only a tiny portion of it. The rest was formed largely as mainstream geologists suggest, but at a pace accelerated by hundreds or even thousands (millions?) of times the speed suggested by mainstream geology. This latter notion has its own massive difficulties, among them being the now well-known (among those involved in debating creationism) heat problem, but also that it doesn’t really provide an explanation for the geologic record other than “it moves fast.” So we’re going to set that one aside and focus on the more mainstream YEC view that Noah’s Flood formed the majority of the geologic column, but that some of it is post-Flood (and pre-, but we’re setting that aside, too). On this view, Florissant is post-Flood and so the way it formed geologically is essentially exactly as the geologists stated with lahars, lava flows, and more leading to what we observe today. The timeline, of course, is off (only a few thousand years instead of 37 million), but this YEC view at least has some kind of attempt to allow for us to learn about such features.

There are many problems with this view, too, however. One is that when we observe layering of sediment in the ways suggested at Florissant, it takes much longer than YECs could allow. While they often point to places like Mount Saint Helens to suggest that such formation could be much faster, this is problematic for a couple reasons. The first is that no mainstream geologist suggests catastrophes like Mount Saint Helens don’t happen in the past; rather, their timelines and observations align with such catastrophic events happening. The second is that Mount Saint Helens has been greatly exaggerated in YEC literature, taking features and labeling them with geologic terms that do not correspond with reality. Thus, an alleged canyon at Mount Saint Helens formed with the eruption is really just ash deposited and then cut through with runoff, which will continue to erode it rapidly in ways expected by mainstream geology. It’s not analogous to something like the Grand Canyon. Finally, a major problem with this “it just went fast” scenario is that it does nothing to explain the observation of different climate zones found in Colorado than what exist today. Are we to believe that alongside layering of ash and diatoms turning to rock and an immensely accelerated rate, the region also went from tropical to Mountainous and snow-covered during the winter in just a thousand or so years?

The answer from YECs of course is, yes, we are supposed to believe that. But what mechanisms do they suggest for this actually occurring? One is the notion that the Flood led to an ice age which, as the Flood waters receded, then changed the climate of the Earth. Another mechanism is the acceleration of nuclear decay (which again runs into the heat problem). Here we find YECs must continue to invent extrabiblical scenarios to explain extrabiblical observations, thus undermining their claim to be simply observing what the Bible says as their scientific starting point.

A final problem (not the final problem, simply the last one I’m touching on here) with the YEC scenarios is the sheer amount of deposition at even a relatively tiny site like Florissant. The photograph above shows just one hill composed of shale. This entire hill could be dug into and one could pull out paper-thin pieces of shale layering the entire hill (one should not do this as it is a National Park site and is very illegal; I’m saying this for the sake of observation!). This hill stands far taller than I do, and taller than surrounding trees, and is just one of many hills composed of the same material. All of this managed to get layered, ash-diatom-ash-ash-diatom-diatom-ash, etc. in such minute, miniscule layers that you literally can push them apart with a wedge and see the rock crumble in your hand because each layer is so thin. And for YECs, all of this is supposed to have happened in just a few thousand years, with the ash and diatoms getting compressed into those thin layers of rock, but in such an immense volume that it can cover hills, and in such precision that one can see where the trees were covered with mud from a lahar, and in such a careful way that it settled softly enough to cover but not destroy butterfly wings. Such a belief stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And this is but one site.

Conclusion

The first thing I want to conclude is that if you get the chance to visit Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, you should do so. The hikes are fairly short- it isn’t a massive site. But for a day of exploring and learning about Earth’s past, it is nearly unrivaled.

Florissant provides an incredibly rich look at Earth’s geologic past. In just this one small region, one can literally see where volcanoes once spewed ash and covered parts of the area with lava, one can walk up to rock layers showing deposition of lava that flowed from nearly 100 miles away, one can see the world’s largest (by diameter) petrified trees, one can see the depositions of shale that led to some of the best insect fossils in the entire world, and more. It is an immensely wonderful experience to be able to see firsthand how geologists really can see the landscape and form conclusions about our past. And for all of that, it also provides a set of major problems for young earth creationism, a theory that is continually forced to evolve and add explanations simply to try to wave away the many, many difficulties with it.

Finally, Christians should know that young earth creationism is not even remotely a necessary doctrine for believing the Bible or remaining Christian. It is a theory with almost no connection to church history, and one which is a modern invention to try to counter modern science. The eternal truths of God do not rely upon human innovation of doctrine.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Young Earth Creationism– This link will take you to the all my posts on YEC (scroll down for more).

Gregg Davidson vs. Andrew Snelling on the Age of the Earth– I attended a debate between an old earth and young earth creationist (the latter from Answers in Genesis like Ken Ham). Check out my overview of the debate as well as my analysis.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye- An analysis of a lose-lose debate– In-depth coverage and analysis of the famous debate between young earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “When God Became White” by Grace Ji-Sun Kim

When God Became White by Grace Ji-Sun Kim shows the development of how Western Christianity shaped the narrative of God along lines that became more patriarchal and, ultimately, racist, than it had been.

I find it a little difficult to review this book. On the one hand, it provides quite a bit of stories and short, pithy points that will help readers looking for an introduction to these topics to come to a better understanding of how we got to where we are, particularly in the United States, with a white male patriarchal Christianity. On the other hand, as I read the book, I longed for deeper exploration of some of the topics.

For example, the book makes great points about mission work and how the whiteness of missionaries impacted perception of Christianity and race worldwide (61ff, see in particular 68 and following). Similarly, the author touches upon the fact that race is a humanly invented concept that relies upon social distinctions and contrast and that has historically been defined and redefined (27ff). But, while the latter points are utterly essential to the central thesis of the book–that whiteness has negatively thwarted Christianity in a number of ways–these historical impacts aren’t tied into the greater point, leaving the reader at times with the assumption that with the spread of Christianity came the spread of the concept of whiteness. But this goes against the very brief historical outline presented in the book and also against deeper studies like The History of White People. For me, it seems the thesis would be greatly strengthened with deeper exploration of the developing definition of whiteness and its moving goal posts alongside the differing depictions of Jesus and God and how these two interrelate. As it stands, the interrelationship is assumed, not argued for, and from that assumption comes many of the other theses of the book. And while I’m deeply sympathetic to these theses and the central concepts of the book, it felt like it needed a stronger backbone to link the concept of whiteness to Christianity, especially in light of the acknowledged historical development of that concept.

Much of the argument in the book relies, in fact, upon anecdotes. These are great for illustrative purposes (such as the famous portraits of white Jesus found ubiquitously in churches and grandparents’ foyers) to show the impact of white Jesus on our faith lives, but it doesn’t do as much to show how we can dismantle this or what historically happened to get from the Ancient Near Eastern God/Jesus to what we have today. Is it possible I was hoping for a different book than the one I got? Yes, that’s probably at least part of it. I wanted more depth. As it stands, though, this book does introduce readers to a number of important topics and difficulties with Christianity and the way it has changed into a white gendered God.

When God Became White is a pithy read that makes a number of great points. It doesn’t go deeply into some of the points contained, and relies maybe a bit too much on anecdote, but it remains a read well worth the time to struggle with the points it makes.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Genesis as History- Some difficulties

Zondervan’s Counterpoints Series brings together different views on various theological subjects to compare and contrast them. The series has varying success, often not representing even the full gamut of even Evangelical views on a topic or even misrepresenting orthodox views from other traditions[1]. Here, in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters, we see another example of failing to include a whole range of views on a topic. Obviously this has to be at least partially an editorial choice, as representing thousands of years and hundreds of views on the earliest chapters of Genesis would be impossible in any single book. On the surface it seems to provide all the options, but even within the text of the book, the struggle over labeling something as “myth” and what that means for history persists. Outlining all of the problems in attempting to classify Genesis as straightforward history would be a monumental task, but here I want to use James K. Hoffmeier’s chapter as a case study in some of the difficulties with taking Genesis as “history.”

Hoffmeier has the unenviable task of attempting to turn Genesis 1-11 into “history.” One obvious question, then, is “What is history?” As someone who has a major interest in history and historiography, defining history is… quite difficult. Even basic assumptions about what is meant by history are questioned in the academic literature on the topic. This isn’t because academics are trying to be difficult, but rather because human endeavors are rarely simple, and an attempt to write about or describe those endeavors in the past just adds layers upon layers to that complexity. For example, is it the case that someone writing a text of history is trying to tell the reader what “really happened”? On its face, the answer seems to be yes, but that is often not the case. In ancient times, acts of writing about the past often had meaning behind them. A simple act of creating a genealogy might have the intent of linking one ruler to another who had previously had no connection. We in fact see this in Ancient Near Eastern genealogies, when we find that they often move kings in and out of lists and find new fathers for legitimizing current or past rulers. In our own time, we can see the bias inherent in writing on certain topics. The simple description of history as the attempt to write down what “really happened” is just that- simple to the point of being overly simplistic. History is rarely just an attempt to write what actually occurred, and the connection between our time and the past is often less straightforward than one might think.

All of this is to say that it is somewhat astonishing to me to see that there is almost no attempt to define history either by the editor of this volume or by Hoffmeier. Reading an intent onto such an act is folly, but the lack of attempting the definition certainly makes the whole endeavor squishier. Namely, it allows one defending the concept of Genesis as “history” to simply hand wave at a generalized idea of what history is when they are challenged on specific points (more on this later).

Hoffmeier’s defense of Genesis as history is necessarily short based on the nature of the work, but it gives us some interesting avenues to pursue. He specifically cites some case studies to show that Genesis is intended as history. First, he looks at the Garden of Eden. After simply stating that the talking snake, the forming of Eve from Adam’s rib (a likely mistranslation anyway with some, erm, lively interpretive attempts), etc. are tied to “myth,” he quickly states that “the author of the narrative goes to great lengths to place Eden within the known geography of the ancient Near East…” (32). Hoffmeier’s argument moves on to show that there are four rivers that are named and that other geographic details are presented in order to help the reader geographically locate the Garden. Remarkably, simply because of these geographic details, Hoffmeier concludes, “though the garden pericope may contain mythic elements, it is set in ‘our historical and geographical world,’ which is hard to reconcile with pure mythology” (35).

I find this an entirely inadequate defense of this story as history. Ben Hur by Lew Wallace takes place in our historical and geographical world and contains mythical elements, but can hardly be construed as history. Similar things could be said for any number of alternative histories. Indeed, one could make the same vague conclusion about the Harry Potter series! It has identifiable places and often goes to great lengths to tell readers where they are in the world. As a parallel to Hoffmeier’s difficulty in locating some of the rivers mentioned around Eden, perhaps the location of Privet Drive, Harry Potter’s boyhood home, could serve–something intended as sounding like a place, but impossible to locate on a map. The stories contain mythical elements, but we can hardly dismiss them as “pure mythology,” right? After all, they’ve got place names! Similar things could be said for Percy Jackson or even the Chronicles of Narnia! It is astonishing that simply having some geographical details is seen as evidence to suggest the contents of a story is intended to be accurately describing things that actually happened.

Hoffmeier’s defense of the historical nature of Genesis 6:1-4–a story rife with literary, theological, and textual questions–is even more vague. Here, he notes several of the problems with figuring out who the Nephilim are, argues for some parallels with Babel, and then when it comes time to show that it is history simply appeals to a theological point, not an historical one! He writes, “I contend that despite our inability to completely understand this short episode, it must recall a genuine memory from early human history; after all, it is held up as the ‘final straw’ that caused God to determine to judge creation [and send a Flood]… For God to resolve to wipe out humans on the earth would surely not be the result of some made up story!” (41).

There’s a lot we could unpack here, from the assumption that the Flood narrative is global and actually wiped out all humans on Earth to the fact that Hoffmeier essentially concedes that this allegedly historical narrative is confusing enough that we can’t really understand what’s happening. But instead of unpacking all of that, I want to focus simply on his defense. His entire defense of this as historical is wrapped up not in features of the text itself, not in any archaeological or paleontological finds to back it up; no, it is based upon a theological argument from incredulity! If we assume that God wiped out all humanity because of this story, then wouldn’t it be really silly if this story wasn’t actually historically true? Well yes, it would be, but those are the very questions at issue! Isn’t it possible that there might be some other theological purpose for the story to be there, one that is mythical or perhaps even lost to time because we are living thousands of years after it was first composed and written down? No, for Hoffmeier, we must simply assume that it is historical because if it is not, then… what? It’s not even clear, because his point is entirely rhetorical rather than based in reality.

Fascinatingly, Hoffmeier’s extensive analysis of the Flood narrative seems to undercut his rhetorical point above. After noting the presence of Flood narratives elsewhere, he takes the similarities in the Genesis Flood account to the Babylonian one to somehow mean it is historical, despite his own admission that it seems to have been “consciously aimed at refuting the Babylonian worldview” (54). One would think that after this admission, Hoffmeier and other defenders of the Flood as history might see an incongruity in their clinging to it as a story that really happened as written and their conceding that the story is deliberately intended as a refutation of a differing worldview. But no, that’s not what happens. Instead, Hoffmeier simply argues that it is part of the shared memory of Israel and Babylon, contradicting his own earlier conclusion that it was intended to refute the Babylonian worldview.

I mentioned above that the term history is “squishy” and by not defining it, Hoffmeier essentially gives himself room for hand waving about what issues might come up with claiming Genesis as such. I appreciated Kenton L. Sparks’s response to Hoffmeier in this volume when he essentially pinned him to the wall on this exact difficulty. After Hoffmeier vaguely suggests the Garden of Eden is a historical story, Sparks challenges him to explain what exactly is meant by that- “If the author of Genesis used mythical imagery, as Hoffmeier has suggested, then which images are mythic symbol and which are closer to historical representation? Does Hoffmeier believe that the cosmos was created in six literal days? Does he believe that the first woman was made from Adam’s rib? Does he believe that a serpent spoke in the garden? Does he believe that our broken human condition can be traced back to eating pieces of fruit? Does he believe in giants who roamed the pre-flood earth?” (64). Sparks doesn’t, in fact, stop there and asks even more questions, ultimately finishing: “One wonders why Hoffmeier does not answer these questions when the historicity of Gen 1-11 is the main theme of our discussion” (ibid). Yes, one wonders that indeed. When someone claims Genesis is history and doesn’t clarify what is meant by that, these are the exact kinds of questions that should be asked. And, to be clear, any attempt to answer them affirmatively while claiming that that can be backed up by modern analysis of the genre of these early chapters or by modern methods of historical analysis is an exercise in futility.

I think I have written enough here to show that a defense of Genesis as history is filled with extreme difficulties. There are many, many more I could go into, but I’d like to wrap this up for now. If a defender wishes to defend Genesis as history they must not only define history and show that it meats that definition, but they must also show that each individual detail can meet their standard of history or at least not contradict it. Hoffmeier has failed to do any of those things. Genesis is not a historical account. This conclusion should not bother those who wish to still find theological and spiritual meaning in the text. Indeed, it should be somewhat freeing, because instead of having to defend individual details of the text in such a roundabout way, they can set aside the questions of “did this really happen” and ask the far more interesting questions like “What is this text supposed to be telling us?” Hoffmeier almost made it to that point with his look at the Flood when he admitted it appears to have been written to refute the Babylonian worldview. Religious readers of the text can see that as a magnificent detail and one that might shine light on a text that is otherwise quite alarming.

Note and Citation

[1] One example is the abysmal “modified Lutheran” view of Law and Gospel in the 5 views on the same–yes, I have a bone to pick here as a Lutheran. Douglas Moo wrote that chapter. He’s not a Lutheran and it’s clear he doesn’t even have a mild grasp on the Lutheran position on Law and Gospel. He erroneously outlines the Lutheran position as a temporal split between Law and Gospel, paralleling it with the Old and New Testaments. This is completely mistaken from a Lutheran view. Then he chastises Lutherans for taking this position and says it has to be modified into whatever he makes up on the fly and calls it a modification of a view he didn’t even present to begin with. It’s truly an abysmal job and I wonder why the editor didn’t call upon some Lutherans to weigh in (because I sincerely doubt they did so) or, if one wants to write a Lutheran chapter, why they didn’t choose a Lutheran to do so.

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters edited by Charles Halton, Grand Rapids: MI, Zondervan 2015.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Gregg Davidson vs. Andrew Snelling on the Age of the Earth– I attended a debate between an old earth and young earth creationist (the latter from Answers in Genesis like Ken Ham). Check out my overview of the debate as well as my analysis.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye- An analysis of a lose-lose debate– In-depth coverage and analysis of the famous debate between young earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Ownership: The Evangelical Legacy of Slavery in Edwards, Wesley, and Whitefield” by Sean McGever

Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, and George Whitefield remain incredibly influential on American Evangelicalism to this day. Yet, in their own times, they were morally compromised on the issue of slavery. Edwards and Whitefield were enslavers, while Wesley didn’t speak against slavery until late in life. Ownership: The Evangelical Legacy of Slavery in Edwards, Wesley, and Whitefield by Sean McGever explores the history of these evangelicals related to slavery and appraises that legacy into today.

The book is broken up into four parts. The first explores the historical context of the titular men, the second outlines their participation in a society of enslavement, the third shows actions taken against slavery in their times, and the final part explores the legacy of these men.

The first task McGever sets for himself is to outline why it is important today to talk about slavery then and the impact thinkers may continue to have despite their history with slavery. He sets out some of the questions asked about studying slavery and bringing it up as a live topic today, then he argues that the legacy of enslavement in White Evangelical circles continues to cause rifts and problems into the present time. He directly confronts the argument that these were “men of their times.” He contextualizes the counter-argument by noting that how we are remembered does matter and asks how we would want to be remembered in the future–as people who were simply following whatever whims of our times or as people who follow timeless moral truths? (10-11).

The historical section is a fairly straightforward history of the three men and their history with slavery. The contextual history showing that there were movements for abolitionism during the time helps refute the “men of their times” argument. It also shows how easy it would be to stay a “person of their time” in such an era. Once again, though, McGever questions whether this is really the excuse to give to historical persons–and certainly whether we’d want to give it to ourselves. If one believes in any kind of objective or timeless moral truth (for example, the truth that enslaving others is wrong), then that is a truth that could be recognized and striven for even if it would be easy to not do so. Wesley did ultimately speak up against slavery, though it took many, many years to do so.

McGever’s work is unique because it not only traces the history of the deeply problematic legacy of slavery in American Evangelicalism but also calls on readers today to explore and counter that legacy. “Our stories do not end when we die” (153). This is a central aspect of McGever’s thesis–that legacy does matter and that our legacy lives in in friends, family, and others. For us, this means ownership of the failures of our heroes (169ff). Failures may lead to pointing fingers and making even heroes enemies, but McGever notes that “Loving our enemies includes holding people accountable and expecting change” (171). He urges readers to realize the society they’re born into has deep influence on moral and other decisions (175-176); that ideologies we perpetuate can yield larger results (176-178); and that we can make changes throughout our lives to own our moral legacy (178-184).

Ownership is a fascinating book that not just informs readers but also calls them to action. By using the examples of Edwards, Whitefield, and Wesley, McGever urges readers to learn from the past and be better in the future. Highly recommended.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Bonhoeffer on an infallible (or inerrant) church, book, or doctrine

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor who was executed by the Nazis, continues to rise in fame and prominence in American theology. Many conservatives have been working to co-opt his theology for Evangelicalism, but Bonhoeffer remained thoroughly Lutheran throughout his life. What is especially interesting is that, while Bonhoeffer was seen as fairly conservative in his own setting, his views on Scripture would be seen as wildly liberal by most American Evangelicals.

For example, from student notes on a lecture Bonhoeffer gave on Karl Barth’s theology: “Be it an infallible church, Book or Doctrine, all these assume that there is a spot in the world which is not fallen and thus exempt from sinfulness. But the only part of the world free from Sin and its positive correlative is Christ Jesus… and He alone is the ultimate authority…” (DBWE 13:315 [Dietrich Bonhoeffer: London, 1933-1935]).

While brief, Bonhoeffer’s point could not be more anathema to those who claim that inerrancy is a necessary doctrine for Christianity. Bonhoeffer notes that any claims to infallibility (which is often seen as even less powerful a word than inerrancy, though Bonhoeffer could not have referred to inerrancy as the doctrine had not even been developed yet) of church, book (including the Bible!), or doctrine (including inerrancy!) is necessarily part of the fallen world and so not exempt from sinfulness. In other words, no book–even the Bible–can be seen as free from the corrupting influence of sin. Bonhoeffer instead sees Christ alone as the ultimate authority on God.

While inerrantists might attempt to counter this argument by saying things like “but how do we know about Christ?”–the implication being that we can only know about Christ through the Bible–this not only discounts the power of the Holy Spirit, but it also merely reaffirms the point that we do not need an inerrant Scripture to know about God. God instead enters into our world as the ultimate authority in Christ, coming as a human being in a way that is seen as foolishness to the world–including the inerrantists who try to raise Scripture to the level of Christ.

Bonhoeffer’s last words recorded in the lecture notes reflect this: “…God’s will crosses out all human will and effort. Hence the cross is a judgement. Thus the word of the cross which is foolishness and a stumbling block is the ultimate authority” (ibid).

Bonhoeffer’s argument thus directly answers and even chastises the inerrantist rejoinder, noting that they have raised that which is human will and effort–whether church, Book, or Doctrine–to the level of God and that the cross pronounces judgement upon that idea through Christ as ultimate authority.

Now, these words come from student notes on his lectures, but they by no means go against what Bonhoeffer says elsewhere about the doctrine of Scripture and Christology. For Bonhoeffer, and indeed for traditional Lutheranism that has not been co-opted by Evangelical thinking points, inerrancy was a moot point because God alone is without error and has already revealed Godself to us in Christ.

What so many American Evangelical fans of Bonhoeffer continue to misunderstand–and even, sadly, distort–is that Bonhoeffer was through and through a German Lutheran, not an American Evangelical. I am hopeful that as more continue to explore Bonhoeffer’s life and works, they find in Bonhoeffer not an enemy, but perhaps a challenge or correction to their theology and ethics as well.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Dietrich Bonhoeffer– read all my posts related to Bonhoeffer and his theology.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Looking Up: A Birder’s Guide to Hope Through Grief” by Courtney Ellis

Looking Up: A Birder’s Guide to Hope Through Grief by Courtney Ellis is an exciting book on a confluence of subjects of interest to me. I have been birding for decades, a hobby my mom got me into. While I wouldn’t consider myself an expert, by any means, I have found enormous joy in spotting feathery friends and taking note of their mannerisms. I also am interested in theologically informed spiritual practices. Ellis introduces a kind of amalgam of birding and spirituality with Christian hope.

The combination seems unlikely, but Jesus himself told us to “consider the birds.” Clearly, this was meant in context of a broader point, but Ellis asks us to slow down and really take the time to do just that, consider the birds, and the ways their activities might guide our own thoughts and actions. It is so easy today to get caught in the cacophony of social media, work, whatever social life is left over, and more. But what if we really thought about grief and gave it space, or what if we could learn from the differing activities of birds themselves?

How does this play out in the text? Ellis highlights a type of bird in each chapter, presents a narrative having to do with grief (often related to her own loss with the death of her grandfather and dealing with the complicated nature of grief), and weaves these together with seeing God’s work in our lives and the world. The book could introduce readers to a practice of birding, or those already into birding to see more beyond the birds themselves.

Looking Up was by turns insightful, delightful, and informative. It does speak to the soul for learning about hope in grief, even while turning to the skies and looking up. I recommend it.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.