christian
Young Earth Creationism and the Problem of Multiple Dating Methods for a Tyrannosaur Fossil
When I was a young earth creationist (here after YEC), I often heard about the absurdity of dating methods used to arrive at millions of years for the age of fossils. One such argument I have seen repeated is that scientists determine the date of fossils based upon presuppositions about the age of each layer in the fossil record. What I want to emphasize is that this massively oversimplifies the way scientists date fossils. When we look at how scientists actually do date individual fossils, the evidence for the age of the Earth against YEC mounts quickly.
There are many, many more methods of dating fossils that continue to show that entirely independent strands of evidence yield the same ages or relative ages. In an essay in Tyrannosaurid Paleontology edited by Parrish et al., the authors show the age of a juvenile Tyrannosaurid based upon pollen, leaves, and paleomagnetism. What is important to note is that these are independent ways of measuring the age of this specific fossil. That is, the data that needs to be explained by the YEC is not simply dismissal of Carbon dating or something, but rather that each of these data points must be independently falsified, along with an explanation for why they would all align. Additionally, the paper summarized below shows how much more complex dating methods based upon looking at the layer in which a fossil is found. In other words, it helps to show that the creationist teaching that remains fairly common on YouTube and elsewhere that scientists simply look at the layer a fossil is in and assume the age is quite complex and based upon a series of data points.
Brief Summary of the Evidence
Note: I am not a trained scientist. I am summarizing the content of the paper cited, and attempting to put quotations at every point I’m directly quoting. This section is largely a glossed summary of points of the paper, and any errors and misunderstanding thereof in such a summary are on me.
In an essay entitled “Using Pollen, Leaves, and Paleomagnetism to Date a Juvenile Tyrannosaurid in Upper Cretaceous Rock” by William F Harrison et al., the authors argue that a juvenile fossil tyrannosaurid fossil (named and sometimes hereafter referred to as “Jane”) can be confidently dated to about 66 million years ago. The juvenile tyrannosaurid (still an astonishing 7 meters in length!) was discovered in the Hell Creek formation in southeastern Montana in Carter County. The authors give details of the find, including the longitude/latitude, the place within the Hell Creek formation in which it was found, and other relevant details.
One of these is that the place the fossil was found was missing the top of the Hell Creek Formation with the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. This is a common part of the formation and other parts of the formation were visible from the site but the paleontologists were not granted access to the other sites within view to conduct a direct survey of the geologic columns there. This meant that they had to rely on additional dating methods.
First, they used a borehole log, which is made by cutting a cylindrical hole into the ground and extricating a section therefrom, allowing geologists to make a detailed summary of the formation. Another survey of nearby Blacktail Creek area of Montana was able to locate a magnetic reversal, which could then be used at the site of the Jane find to help place it in the formation. A stratigraphic section of the formation at the Jane site is provided, showing in detail each of these layers and correlations thereof. Jane, after death, was “buried within a 40 cm thick lens of poorly sorted silt, sand, and clay balls… This clay ball conglomerate contains abundant plant and animal fossils…” Again, a photograph shows a polished section of the clay ball conglomerate and siderite (a mineral compound) in which Jane was found.
Interestingly, from this conglomerate in which Jane was buried, scientists were able to extract fossilized pollen, vegetational residue, and more for analysis. This allowed them to determine what kind of planets the residue and pollen came from. The pollen was demonstrably from aquilapollenites and wodehouseia, each of which are entirely extinct now (more on that later). Fossil leaves were also collected from the Jane site, and these correspond to “the stratigraphic position indicated by the pollen and support the determination of its geologic age.” Once again, these leaves were determined to genus and species and they correspond to a “very narrow megafloral zone.” This is important, because, again, this megafloral zone is a zone in which only certain species occur within a stratigraphic layer on the Earth, and at the Jane site, only leaves from certain megaflora in a specific zone were found. Other types of plant leaves found are restricted in the fossil record to very specific parts of the Hell Creek formation. For conventional scientists, this marks their extinction [for YEC possibilities and problems thereof, see the section below]. The greatly delimited range of these plants allows scientists to narrow down the age of the Jane site even more, because it occurs only within a very specific stratigraphic range alongside very specific other fossils.
Additionally, the scientists collected samples from the fine grained sediment at the Jane site and analyzed them at the Paleomagnetics Laboratory of the University of California, Davis. There, based on the way the clay balls were sorted within the samples, they found the magnetic polarity of the sample corresponded to normal polarity and thus set another limit on the age of the Jane site (based upon stratigraphic samples showing differing magnetic polarity above or below it). Because these polarity shifts–reverse-normal-reverse-etc.–can be measured through stratigraphic analysis essentially globally, this allowed the scientists at the Jane site to determine that the age range of 65.9-66.0 million years ago is the correct age for the Jane fossil. The precision was possible because of both the paleobotanical and palynological–ancient plants and microorganisms–samples from the site.
Some Conclusions and Issues
It worth noting that the pollen at the Jane site was from two types of planets which are entirely extinct now. Young Earth Creationists often argue that all or most fossils, including the overwhelming majority (or all) dinosaurs were deposited by Noah’s Flood. One wonders, then, why in this great conglomeration and mixture of plants and animals, there is no fossilized pollen found from species that exist now. Why only extinct species? How did it just so happen that only extinct pollen–microscopic pollen!–settle onto this site? And how is that the case time and again, at site after site after site? To say that all this pollen and all these plants were washed away by the Flood but then somehow sorted into extinct and non extinct species, remarkably from bottom to the top of the geologic column, should be enough to stretch even the most credulous minds.
Similarly, the determination of just a few species of megaflora found at the Jane site demands explanation. Here, because leaves are obviously much larger than pollen, the creationist could theoretically just say that it so happened this area was only covered with that type of planet during the pre-Flood time and so it happened that only that kind of planet was preserved here. That does not, however, explain why totally different and distinct layers of plants are found in layers above and below this generalized stratigraphic layer, or why this specific megafloral zone is consistent across not just the Hell Creek Formation but elsewhere, and why examples of this can be multiplied essentially indefinitely. Time and again, specific fossils are only found with other specific fossils. There’s no mixing of them all together. You don’t find rabbit fossils with dinosaur fossils with the type of megaflora fossils found with Jane. Why not? Were there no rabbits roaming the pre-Flood world of Montana? Were there no flowering plants close enough to have their leaves cast about massive expanses of fossilized land? Again, it is far, far more parsimonious and plausible to acknowledge that, instead, the YEC narrative is simply mistaken on this. It cannot handle the sheer weight of the evidence.
The evidence here does not rely on Carbon-14 dating directly. Instead, it relies upon generally acknowledged dates for things like the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary, which again was sheered off by weather or some other events at the Jane site. This, along with the pollen fossils, microorganism fossils, and botanical fossils allowed scientists to make determinations to continue narrowing the date of the site from a broad range (before the K/T boundary) to a much more narrow range. These dating techniques were done independently. That is, the identification of the leaves was not used to determine the age of the polarity shifts in the magnetism of Earth. Instead, the way the sediments were sorted in the samples was used to determine a date; the specific pollen of megaflora was used to determine a specific date range because they only lived during a certain time range; the leaves were used to determine a specific range (here, independently, based upon botanical analysis of the age range possible with these plants). These all independently yielded a similar and narrow range. It was narrowed not arbitrarily but by noting the relative ages of each range.
So, for example, if you discovered a text fragment from the ancient world, you could narrow down the timeline in which it was made or discussing by finding out more about it. If, for example, it was in Latin and talking about events in the Roman Empire, that would broadly limit the possible dates to within the existence of the Roman Empire; then, if it talked about a specific province of Rome that wasn’t conquered until a certain time, that would narrow the possible timeline even more, and then if it talked about a governor of that province, it would narrow the dates to within the rule of that governor, etc. Similarly, since certain plants or microorganisms can be known to only occur in certain stratigraphic layers–and this is consistently determined by actual digs finding actual evidence of this assortment and lack of mixing–one can set ever-narrowing limits on the age based upon the overlaps of these events. Adding in the polarity shifts to the dating method was just icing on the cake. And again, why should all these data methods correspond unless the Earth is actually as old as conventional science supposes?
One obvious objection in all of this is the question of how the scientists determined the relative ages of things like the leaves, pollen, etc. While it seems, on the surface, problematic that these all correspond to ages in the millions of years that all align, just having a leaf in a fossil layer is not enough to put a date on it. Aren’t those dates slapped on based on radiometric dating of some kind, thus making the whole thing one line of evidence, not many? The objection has some weight at first glance because, to my knowledge, it is true that the ages for the stratigraphic layers were determined, in part, by radiometric dating, and thus saying that a certain layer has a consistent date across the region is reliant upon that dating method. Setting aside the many, many arguments and clarifications about radiometric dating, however, the problems in this paper go far beyond reliance upon radiometric dating. They also are grounded upon measurements about the magnetic polarity of Earth, as well as independent, multiple lines of evidence showing a narrow range of dates for when Jane was possibly alive. Supposing radiometric dating is entirely unreliable and that it just somehow continually yields similar age ranges for similar layers and fossils and consistently is measured in the same ranges across regions and beyond, the fact remains that Jane was identified in a unique stratigraphic layer with unique and exclusive megaflora pollen, unique and exclusive leaves, unique and exclusive microorganisms, and unique and exclusive polarity measurements through the clay ball sediment sorting present.
Why, given Noah’s Flood’s deposition of these layers, would this even possibly be the case? There’s not even one piece of pollen out of place from a plant in a different stratigraphic layer; there’s not even one piece of evidence of sediment being sifted in a different direction by changing tides of Flood water; there’s not even one leaf from an olive tree or any modern botanical features that happened to show up in this entire layer of deposited sediment; there’s not even one microorganism out of place; there’s not even one out of place animal fossil from a different sedimentary layer; there’s not even one post K-T Boundary layer creature found out of place. Not. Even. One. Did God miraculously sort each grain of sediment, each microorganism, each animal washed away by the Flood, each leaf, each pollen grain, each plant, each megafloral layer so that they would layer upon each other in distinct and evidentially detectable ways? It’s absurd to suppose this. It’s not that this would be impossible for God. No, it’s that there’s no biblical or extrabiblical evidence to suggest that God interacts in the world in this way. The only reason to even posit it is a desperate attempt to save modern young earth creationism from scientific absurdity. And that means that acts of God are being determined by modern science after all, in an ironic twist–YECs are determining how and why God acted based upon scientific evidence. The whole thing collapses on examination.
Additional Evidence and Conclusion
I have argued elsewhere about the stunning congruity of such divergent dating methods as tree rings, varves (annual layers of sediment), and Carbon-14. If YEC is true, there seems to be no explanation for why tree rings, Carbon-14, and varves should all align on the age of the Earth. I’ve also noted the argument from GPS measurement of the movement of the Hawaiian Islands and Carbon-14 dating of those same islands. Again, why should the measured movement rate of the Hawaiian Islands align with C-14 dating methods on YEC? And, as argued above, why should leaves, pollen, and paleomagnetism align as well? There is a stunning and constant refrain from these various and independent ways for measuring the age of fossils or the Earth generally: they point to an age that is orders of magnitude larger than that of YEC.
Young Earth Creationism, therefore, must contend either that all of these independent methods for dating fossils are mistaken in multiple independent ways or come up with a plausible explanation for why God would provide all these independent methods to provide false data. Proposals I have seen for the latter (eg. God intentionally creating with the appearance of age) suffer from severe theological problems, while proposals for the former are essentially nonexistent. It seems far more plausible, then, to suppose that it is Young Earth Creationism that is falsified.
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!
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: “The Wood Between the Worlds: A Poetic Theology of the Cross” by Brian Zahnd
The Wood Between the Worlds by Brian Zahnd encourages believers to think upon the cross in imaginative and soul building ways.
I admit I approach reviewing this book with some trepidation, largely because there’s not a very simple way to systematically sum it up. It almost functions devotionally. Each chapter has a specific topic and focuses on what that topic can mean for our Christian life and walk. Each is also quite focused on the cross as central to that discussion. For example, Zahnd discusses one of the earliest references to the cross and Christianity together as a piece of graffiti that mocks Jesus on the cross and believers in Him; meanwhile, elsewhere, someone scrawled their faithfulness endured. It’s a powerful reminder that Christianity has stood for so long, and that the centrality of the cross was recognized even by mocking outsiders.
Zahnd doesn’t just stick to the abstract with the reflections on the cross, either. He asks questions about modern day ethics, including topics like capital punishment (chapter 14). These modern questions seem less like intrusions than extensions of his earlier chapters building the foundation for an ethics and theology of the cross.
One minor concern is that Zahnd writes that the crucifixion “is the central event in the gospel story” (28). I would disagree insofar as I think it’s more accurate to say the resurrection is the central event. Now, I realize that many use crucifixion/cross to refer to the whole events, including the resurrection of Christ, but I would prefer that to be explicated. It is, as I said, a very minor point.
The Wood Between the Worlds is a fantastic read that encourages Christians to think of Christ and the cross as central aspects of their everyday living in the Kingdom of God.
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.
Biographies of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: An Ongoing Review and Guide
There is an ever-growing collection of biographies of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who was executed by the Nazis in 1945. This means that when people are looking to learn about Bonhoeffer, it can be difficult to know where to dive in. While I believe there’s no single strong answer to that question, I do think different biographies do different things well. This post will be a catch-all specifically for biographies about Bonhoeffer. I’ll highlight strengths and weaknesses of each one, in the hopes that this will let readers best choose from among the growing field of Bonhoeffer studies. This post will continue to be updated as I encounter additional biographies, and may be expanded to include related works.
Why am I qualified to do this post? I am not a Bonhoeffer scholar by any traditional means, and I think it is incredibly important to read those scholars. That said, I have read over 100 books by or about Bonhoeffer, his life, and his theology. By no means does this make me an expert, but I think I could at least offer some insights into questions about what biography to read.
Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Charles Marsh
Marsh’s biography, published in 2014, presents Bonhoeffer’s life in a compelling fashion backed by scholarship. It is highly readable but doesn’t skip over details and controversies about Bonhoeffer’s life.
Advantages
-Written to effectively introduce readers to scholarship about Bonhoeffer while also telling his life’s story.
-Turns into a page-turner at times with Marsh’s effective writing style.
-Introduces readers to many topics related to Bonhoeffer’s life and theology in ways that can guide further reflection and study.
Disadvantage(s)
-Somewhat long for a reader attempting to get the basics of Bonhoeffer’s life, at more than 400 pages of text.
It’s For You If…
You want a one stop shop for Bonhoeffer’s biography. This is probably the single best biography in terms of combining scholarly insight, readability, and accuracy about Bonhoeffer’s life without being too dry.
The Faithful Spy: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Plot to Kill Hitler by John Hendrix
A graphic novel as a Bonhoeffer biography that caught me unawares in 2020. The art style is engaging, and the panels manage to tell the story without being too cluttered with text.
Advantages
-Extremely readable, with language that is easy to understand, even in sections on theology.
-It’s a graphic novel, I mean… come on. But really, this will appeal to adults who like graphic novels and can also be good reading for teens or tweens who want to engage with deeper topics.
-Probably the most unique biography in presentation.
Disadvantage(s)
-Doesn’t have a complete picture of Bonhoeffer’s life due to the focus on Bonhoeffer’s struggle with Nazism. While this is definitely a large part of his life, it doesn’t fully explain his theology or ethics. It’s a graphic novel, so expecting it to do so might be absurd, but it is worth noting that there is some hot debate in Bonhoeffer scholarship about just how involved he was in the plot to kill Hitler, or even whether he was involved at all. All nuance on this and related topics is basically lost with the format here.
-Relies a bit on Metaxas’s apocryphal work (see below).
It’s for you if…
You want a quick, easy read on Bonhoeffer that gives you at least a surface familiarity with his life and work. Or, you want something you could hand to someone who’s not interested in large tomes.
Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas
This is by far the most popular biography of Bonhoeffer. There’s no doubt that Metaxas’s biography helped the burgeoning interest in Bonhoeffer along. That said, there are serious defects in this biography which lead me to strongly not recommend it as a work for anyone looking into Bonhoeffer’s life.
Advantages
-Popularity- popularity is not a bad thing. It’s great that Metaxas manage to shine a light on Bonhoeffer and encourage so many to read more about him.
-Great subtitle- Bonhoeffer’s life begs to be a major Hollywood blockbuster according to this subtitle.
Disadvantages
-Inaccuracy- I won’t nitpick various tiny facts that Metaxas got wrong. Any biographer can mess up geography or days. It happens. What is at issue is that Metaxas actually undermines much of Bonhoeffer’s own positions by substituting Bonhoeffer’s theology–that of a Lutheran theologian from Germany–with Metaxas’s preferred theology–that of right-leaning American Evangelicalism. For example, Metaxas doesn’t write anything about Bonhoeffer’s views on baptism or the Lord’s Supper, despite Bonhoeffer himself saying the Sacraments are necessary for the church. Why does Metaxas avoid it? Either he’s unaware of Bonhoeffer’s theology here–a major blunder given that Bonhoeffer is a Lutheran pastor–or he’s explicitly leaving it out to avoid offending the Evangelical-Baptist tendencies of his targeted audience, who would strongly disagree with Bonhoeffer’s sacramental theology. Bonhoeffer’s work in the resistance is not given the nuance the evidence requires. Bonhoeffer’s theology is devoid of challenging the reader in Metaxas’s reading. Bonhoeffer is made to be a biblical inerrantist, with Metaxas emphasizing his care for studying the Bible, despite Bonhoeffer’s own words noting that “the theory of verbal inspiration will not do” (DBWE 3:51). In short, Bonhoeffer’s life, theological views, and motivations are all slanted in Metaxas’s representation. Indeed, it shouldn’t escape most readers that Bonhoeffer’s viewpoints begin to seem eerily similar to those of Metaxas’s.
-Distorts the view of Bonhoeffer for many- due to the book’s popularity and its major inaccuracies, it has led to a distorted view of Bonhoeffer’s legacy. One example is the “silence” quote attributed to Bonhoeffer on the inside flap of the book. “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to act is to act.” It’s a great quote, and sounds possibly like something Bonhoeffer would say. The problem is that he didn’t say it. The quote simply is not from Bonhoeffer. And yet it’s in the congressional record as something he said because of the popularity of this book. Now quote misattribution isn’t the end of the world, especially when the quote itself doesn’t necessarily run contrary to the person it’s attributed to. The problem is that Metaxas does things like this constantly. He presents Bonhoeffer as wholly alien to the context in which he operated.
-Somehow still too long for an introductory biography, weighing in at over 600 pages.
It’s for you if…
You’ve gotten a grounding in Bonhoeffer’s life and theology and want to see what the fuss is about. Or, you love writing critical reviews.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance by Ferdinand Schlingensiepen
Schlingensiepen’s biography is broad and intently focused upon Bonhoeffer’s intellectual development and production. It is an excellent work of Bonhoeffer scholarship but perhaps a bit less accessible for the lay reader.
Advantages
-Schlingensiepen’s academic experience and interpersonal connections make him imminently positioned to present an accurate accounting of Bonhoeffer’s life.
-The biography is not American-centric, as even the Marsh biography is in some ways. This biography is more historically based than it is theologically driven.
Disadvantage(s)
-The writing was originally German and the translation, while excellent, retains the dry tone and feel of the work.
-Schlingensiepen seems almost allergic to confronting modern concerns about theological questions that might arise from Bonhoeffer’s thought, making the biography more of a “just the facts, ma’am” approach than an attempt at relevance. This could also be seen as an advantage, depending on the reader.
It’s for you if…
You prefer a factual account of one’s biography to speculation about lesser grounded facts. Or, you would like to see a more modern German take on Bonhoeffer’s life. Or, you prefer to read one of the best scholarly treatments of Bonhoeffer’s life to anything more generalized.
The Doubled Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Women, Sexuality, and Nazi Germany by Diane Reynolds
Bonhoeffer scholarship continues to broaden, and one great advantage of that is that scholars are driven to exploring corners of his life that would not otherwise have been explored. Reynolds here focuses specifically on Bonhoeffer’s life regarding the three subjects noted in the subtitle: women, sexuality, and Nazi Germany. (Full Review Here)
Advantages
-Insightful Commentary- Whether you agree or disagree with Reynolds’s conclusions, she makes a strong case in defense of her points. Truly, I think this biography deserves to be read by anyone who’s serious about engaging with Bonhoeffer’s life.
-Highlights lesser-discussed points- Women are constantly removed from history, but Reynolds puts women back into the narrative of Bonhoeffer’s life. She manages to show how influential many women were on Bonhoeffer’s life, leading to additional questions and avenues for exploration about Bonhoeffer. Additionally, the questions raised about Bonhoeffer’s sexuality elsewhere are highlighted here, with Reynolds deeply analyzing Bonhoeffer’s letters and life to make compelling, challenging arguments.
Disadvantages
-Primary focus is on the topics in the subtitle. Readers will get a fascinating look at Bonhoeffer’s interactions with women, interplay with Nazi Germany, and one of the deepest arguments about his sexuality found anywhere, but won’t have a full picture of his life.
-Highly controversial view of Bonhoeffer’s sexuality, which can be an advantage as it introduces readers to some of the best scholarly arguments on the topic.
It’s For You If…
You’ve read some about Bonhoeffer’s life and are interested in delving deeper into the background of some of his beliefs. You are curious about some of the hubbub surrounding Bonhoeffer’s sexuality in scholarly circles.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography by Eberhard Bethge
Long seen as the definitive biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, this one is written by Bethge, Bonhoeffer’s great friend and confidant. It is voluminous in both content and commentary, providing key insights into Bonhoeffer’s thought from someone who knew him intimately.
Advantages
-The book feels absolutely comprehensive in its look at Bonhoeffer’s life.
-Bethge knew the subject well, personally, and this shows on basically every page.
-Bethge gives many insights into the “why” behind what Bonhoeffer was thinking, leading readers to deeper exploration and understanding of Bonhoeffer’s thought.
Disadvantage(s)
-It’s absolutely massive, weighting in at over 1000 pages (including notes/indices).
-There is some necessary bias from a friend of Bonhoeffer (Bethge) writing in a time in which Bonhoeffer wasn’t nearly as popular as he’s become now.
It’s for you if…
Want to feel like you know Bonhoeffer like a friend. Or, you’d like to see what serves as perhaps the baseline study for any student of Bonhoeffer’s life.
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: “A Non-Anxious Life: Experiencing the Peace of God’s Presence” by Alan Fadling
A Non-Anxious Life: Experiencing the Peace of God’s Presence by Alan Fadling seeks to provide readers with ways to manage anxiety through a Christian lens. There are some good points to be had throughout the book, but I also had significant difficulties with it.
Perhaps the biggest strength of the work is that it emphasizes how we can find comfort in God.
Perhaps my greatest reservation about the book is that it doesn’t have clear messaging. I didn’t see any clarity on the fact that anxiety is often a brain problem–a neurological issue–and this leads to some messaging that seems to make anxiety blameworthy on the individual. For example, early on in a chapter entitled “Anxiety isn’t for the birds,” Fadling writes, “Worry doesn’t help. It doesn’t improve anything. My worry is rooted in an unfortunate experiential blindness to the reality of God’s presence and God’s care in my present situation” (23). This is almost the exact opposite of what I’ve read with successful treatment or care for anxiety. Instead of noting how worry and anxiety are often rooted in patterns of brain activity which we’ve been taught, in trauma, and/or internalized from very young ages (at times), Fadling says that anxiety is “rooted in,” basically, not trusting God enough. This is sets readers up for a cycle of self-blame throughout the book. If, for example, some of the later practices for anxiety management don’t succeed, maybe that’s just the reader suffering “blindness to the reality of God’s presence.” We’re not trying hard enough, and if we just believed enough, we’d be okay. I think it is deeply problematic to set the stage in this fashion for the rest of the book.
Some of the practices Fadling includes do seem helpful, while others are too vague to be practically applied. A small section about “Transferring Our Cares to God” suggests that readers should seek humility or to be humble in times in which they are “try[ing] to take responsibility for what is God’s to care for” (37). Fadling says that one can instead “humbly trust God’s powerful care” in these moments, thus following a “way of humility” that leads us to recall that “God is not overwhelmed by the bad things to happen to us” and leave God to care for things we cannot manage (ibid). While I think this is a potentially useful practice, I was left wondering how to integrate it into any routine, especially given the stage-setting mentioned above. It seems to, again, punt the issue to just being something like trust God harder when you’re anxious, but how does that work?
The chapter on “Practicing Presence” is especially helpful as it focuses on spiritual practices such as focusing on the sense of presence with God–a nearly meditative concept. Fadling also notes how for Christians, peace can be envisioned as a person–Christ–and some ways this could be beneficial on reflection. As someone who has had therapy for anxiety, I found this to be perhaps the most helpful chapter.
One worrying thing throughout the book in addition to the problems noted above is how little emphasis (read: none) there is on things like therapy or research based perspectives on anxiety. This is evident time and again. Fadling notes at one point that “I probably won’t ever reach a point when anxious feelings do not arise in me” (76) but then the only resolution that’s offered to this is “trust Jesus harder” or “be more patient.” Fadling’s degree is an Master of Divinity–a degree many pastors achieve–but it’s not one that provides much training or certification in therapy. It makes me nervous how little any reference points are made to practical insights from trained professionals in that field, especially when paired with some of the problematic messaging I mentioned above.
A Non-Anxious Life has some practical use and tools, but I’m not sure I could endorse it given some of the issues I outlined above. It’s an intriguing attempt to integrate some useful tools for anxiety management from a Christian perspective, but I would recommend potential readers also seek research based therapy and answers.
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.
Book Review: “The Practice of Remembering” by Casey Tygrett
The Practice of Remembering by Casey Tygrett explores the concept of memory and how memories can form us spiritually.
It seems obvious that memory forms us as who we are today, but how does it do so, and do we have any control over it? Do we have any ways to interact with our memories–whether good or bad–to bring additional growth? Tygrett addresses these topics in an easy-to-comprehend manner, often utilizing analogies or highlighting actual brain science research (such as information about neuroplasticity). Each chapter has either a “Practice” or a “Pause” to close it out, encouraging active interaction with the content of the book.
The book is, I think, most useful to use either alone or in a group as a kind of short study/daily devotion. We don’t really spend a lot of time thinking about our memories, despite often experiencing our memories. That is, we usually passively allow memories to float to the surface or actively cycle through them without thinking about that process itself. How is it that we selected these memories at this time? What might it mean for us as people to have memories? What does it mean to experience them?
Okay, now I realize that a lot of this review has just been me asking questions. Tygrett doesn’t just ask questions, but presents a number of ways to answer these questions and reflect on them from a Christian spiritual perspective.
The Practice of Remembering invites readers into a personal, spiritual reflection on their own life experience. I found it opened up new avenues of thought. I think it certainly warrants a reread, as well. Recommended.
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.
Bonhoeffer on the “Social Gospel” and Reconstructing Faith
I have been labeled by some as a Progressive Christian, and even sometimes think of myself that way. That said, my primary identity remains Lutheran, and one of the reasons for that is that I believe that while the work for social justice is profoundly important, it cannot supplant the primary focus of my faith, which is Christ. It’s hard to put my finger on the what difference that makes, but I think a concrete example from the past can help shine some light on the topic.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran who was murdered by the Nazis in 1945, visited the United States and encountered what was then a growing movement towards the Social Gospel. Now, Bonhoeffer cannot be seen as some kind of pro-capitalist, anti-Communist, fundamentalist [1]. Bonhoeffer’s visit to the United States enlightened him on a number of things, and as he traveled the States, he condemned their treatment of minorities (especially African Americans). Bonhoeffer’s own writings repeatedly emphasize the need to feed the hungry and care for the poor and oppressed. But Bonhoeffer never allowed those concerns about social justice to supplant the Gospel. In one enlightening writing, “Memorandum: The ‘Social Gospel,'” Bonhoeffer writes a balanced perspective on the notion of social justice and the Gospel.
The work appears in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English: Volume 12. He writes, first that the social gospel adherents are the people who are “most interested and participate most in international Christian work,” which gives the impression that it is the majority Christianity of the United States. This, he states, is “mistaken.” But the opposition and majority church of the time, one Bonhoeffer describes as fundamentalist, is highly problematic: “strong financial support from capitalist circles… and adherents of individualistic revival Christianity” (236). Anyone familiar with Bonhoeffer would know each of these was seen by him as deep condemnation. The church situation generally in the United States was seen by Bonhoeffer as having some problems rooted in its organization. While not having state support of the schools was likely seen by him as a major boon given what was happening to the German Christian movement back home, he rightly points out that “Because the church depends completely on the activity of the congregation, there is strong general interest in the church and a close fusion of public with church interests, with all the consequences for the dominance of the pew over the pulpit” (237).
Moving on to the social gospel’s teachings, Bonhoeffer notes that it makes the “gospel entirely relate[d] to the human being in his current situation…” It sees the problem for humans as the “materialistic, atomistic, individualistic, capitalistic” tenor of the age and proscribes the church as the solution; an ethical solution that reduces and conceals the “real Christ” to instead be the “religion of Christ” and makes the teachings of the church merely about “Christ’s teaching,” thus converting Christianity into “an ethical religion (or even only an ethic)” in which “the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount form its center.” The kingdom of God is seen as an ushering in of an age in which there is true brotherhood among human beings, and this makes God immanent in the world rather than transcendent. The resurrection is seen as a sign and total affirmation of Christ’s teaching of love of neighbor. Social gospel is a religion of action, seeking to bring that version of the Kingdom of God into the world now as the highest goal. Theology is reduced to being a concern only to those who are fundamentalist in their outlook (239-240).
These outlines of the social gospel ring surprisingly true for much modern Progressive theology. I say this as someone who is typically categorized as a Progressive Christian. Bonhoeffer’s words about the social gospel above are so close to so much Progressive theology I have seen. And there’s nothing wrong with seeking to bring the Kingdom of God now, or to usher in an era of inclusion, equality, and love for all people.
Bonhoeffer’s section following this outline of the social gospel is “Appreciation and critique,” and is worth noting at length. First, he states “The unrelenting seriousness with which the practical social problems are shown here, and with which Christians are called to serve, is the decisive contribution of American Christians [involved in the social gospel movement] to the understanding of the Christian message in the entire world… Taking seriously the kingdom of God as a kingdom on earth is biblically sound and is justified…” Clearly, Bonhoeffer resonates with the message of the social gospel over and against the “individualistic” and “capitalistic” concerns of fundamentalist Christianity.
However, the social gospel also caused problems by supplanting theology with Christ-as-ethic. Bonhoeffer writes, “The eschatological understanding of the kingdom, as one that God can create and brings in contrast to the world, has disappeared… Sin is not an unpleasant side effect of human existence; rather it corrupts the innermost core of human beings… Christ is the mediator who reconciles the human being with God and forgives his sins. Cross and resurrection as acts of God are therefore the center of history… God is not the immanent progressive ethical principle of history; God is the Lord who judges the human being and his work, he is the absolute sovereign… The optimism, the ideology of progress does not take God’s commandment seriously (Luke 17:10 [2]). It is modern enthusiasm. It fails to recognize human limits; it ignores the fundamental difference between a kingdom of the world and God’s Kingdom” (241).
Finally, he critiques the social gospel for being an Enlightenment philosophy containing a self-contradictory desire for international and collectivist/individualistic harmony. While such harmony is itself a better ideology than most, it misses the strength of the gospel message when it centers Christ’s resurrection and the coming kingdom of God.
Bonhoeffer’s critique of the social gospel, then, is important to me to understand because it shows how we can resonate and even encourage the goals of the social gospel, or in our own time, social justice while still arguing that to reduce Christianity to the message of human unity actually destroys the very message of the Gospel itself. Yes, we want unity of humanity. Yes, we want peace. Yes, we want to resist the “materialistic, atomistic, individualistic, capitalistic” trend we see in our own times. But no, we must not reduce the message of Christianity to the Sermon on the Mount or see Christ merely as another ethicist.
So much Lutheran theology walks the middle line between views seen to be an opposition. It is neither Arminian nor Calvinist; neither transubstantiation nor merely symbolic in the Eucharist; neither double predestination nor individualized choice of salvation. For our time, perhaps another middle line Lutherans walk is that line affirming both the necessity of theology and yes, even orthodoxy, while also working to bring justice to the world. It’s a line walking the acknowledgement that humanity is sinful and even corrupted by sin–something easier to do outside of our positions of privilege in suburban or urban homes in the United States; when children are made into soldiers, or violence is a day-to-day experience, it is easier to see the corruption of human nature–while also hoping that the God who entered the world in Christ can enter once more and bring healing and holism to humanity. I think it’s worth walking those lines.
Notes
[1]Ironically, his views on Scripture were seen as fairly conservative in his own setting but would be seen by American Evangelicals as wildly liberal today.
[2] “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’’]'” NIV
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: “Kierkegaard and the Changelessness of God” by Craig A. Hefner
Kierkegaard and the Changelessness of God by Craig A. Hefner presents an unusual dynamic: Kierkegaard being used in defense of a core tenet of classical theology: divine immutability.
Hefner begins with a brief introduction to Kierkegaard and correction of misconceptions, including the notion that Kierkegaard was somehow out of tune with classical Christian theology. What Kierkegaard was reacting against was not Christian doctrine but rather than sleepy, comfortable way in which people were living in light of it. Kierkegaard united, rather than divided, traditional Christianity and existentialism.
Next, Hefner moves into four chapters that cover Kierkegaard and the doctrine of divine immutability or changelessness. What makes this defense of immutability unique is in part its focus on Kierkegaard’s existentialism as a defense of that changelessness. The two topics appear to be divergent, but Hefner argues the are in fact unified in Kierkegaard’s milieu. Kierkegaard’s existentialism provides a way to contrast God and humanity. The changing, “all flesh is grass” nature of humanity is contrasted with the immutable God.
Rather than simply relying on this contrast, however, Hefner with Kierkegaard argues that the Self can be reintegrated across change due to its relationship only with an immutable God. God, in other words, is the ground for the Self in a very real way. A whole chapter focuses on James 1:17 and Kierkegaard’s interpretation thereof. James 1:17 is often used as the core text for divine immutability, and Hefner draws on various interpreters to bring its insights to life.
Finally, Hefner argues that Kierkegaard’s conception of immutability doesn’t rely upon metaphysics but rather upon the concept of the self. I admit some of this section was a bit beyond me, because it seems to me that ultimately anything relies upon some kind of metaphysics. However, grounding the concept of immutability on the divine self was an interesting endeavor.
Kierkegaard and the Changelessness of God is an unexpected read. I found it refreshing despite being extremely dense. Recommended for readers looking for deep discussion of existential theology and its application to classical theism.
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.
Because of Concordia and Seminex
The news broke about a week ago (writing in February 2024). The Ann Arbor campus of Concordia University, also known as Concordia University – Ann Arbor (hereafter CUAA) is in dire financial straits. The University has been special through my life, as multiple family members including myself eventually attended and graduated from CUAA. However, I have mixed feelings about the place itself, especially some specific parts of the theology taught and interactions with people there. I’ve written some about this in posts elsewhere.
At the same time as I was thinking about CUAA and the complex feelings I have about it, Seminex hit its 50th anniversary. Seminex was shorthand for Seminary in Exile, a schism in the LCMS specifically centered at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis that led to several professors and hundreds of students leaving the Seminary. A complete history of Seminex is beyond the scope of that post. Briefly, the rise of a militantly conservative wing in the LCMS led to calls of heresy against multiple professors at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis due to their teaching mainstream tools for biblical interpretation. Rather than filing formal charges, these accusations essentially acted as a kind of blackballing and besmirching of the names of those professors deemed unorthodox by this radical wing. It ultimately led to the majority of professors and students walking out to form their own seminary, which ultimately merged with other Lutheran groups, including what would be come the ELCA.
As I prepared to write this article, I sifted through hundreds of photographs I took from my time on campus. It was like revisiting an old friend, in some ways literally. But it was also painful. A lot of those old friends aren’t friends anymore. Some of them have messaged me to tell me I’m going to hell. Others set people I didn’t even know to do the same. Still others disappeared without a trace, turning into nothing but ghosts from the past, living their lives as if I don’t exist.
I also revisited some of the works I’ve read about Seminex. Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod by James C. Burkee tells the story of the conservative takeover of the LCMS. Like other denominations (eg. the Southern Baptist Convention), this takeover, when examined in the light of history, was less about the theological positions held by those involved than it was about power politics. Burkee himself taught at Concordia University Wisconsin, and tells the story from the perspective of a concerned insider, not an anti-LCMS outsider. It’s incredibly detailed, well-documented, and frankly alarming on almost every level.
But the book that has resonated most right now is No Room in the Brotherhood by Frederick W. Danker. Danker was one of the professors who left to be part of Seminex, and his telling of the way Seminex played out is both insightful and cutting in its analysis. His conclusion states explicitly that the various major names on either side of the conflict were not heroes or villains. Instead, the culprit was the “deep-seated conviction of the Missouri Synod that it was completely right. Any actions undertaken in concert with that conviction were therefore also right and it [the LCMS] was willing to perpetuate its institutional identity at any cost” (352).
The reason this resonated, and the reason my mind connected these two events–the possible closure of CUAA and Seminex’s 50th–is because the reaction and impetus seem so intertwined. I can’t tell you how many posts I’ve seen in the last week about how CUAA is the “city on a hill.” The language Jesus uses surrounding the city on a hill is that of letting Christians’ light so shine so that the good deeds of those will lead others to God. As Danker wrote, there’s this deep-seated conviction that the Missouri Synod (in this case, CUAA) is “completely right.” But it wasn’t completely right for so many.
It wasn’t completely right for gay people on campus who were mocked for who they were. It wasn’t a city on a hill for a woman who wanted to follow God’s call to be a pastor but was told she was disobeying God for wanting to serve. It wasn’t completely right for a Baptist friend who was told their view of baptism meant they were facing hellfire. It wasn’t a city on a hill when I witnessed pre-seminary men make fun of women, Jews, and Muslims. It wasn’t completely right for anyone perceived as “liberal.”
And here’s the hell of it: CUAA felt completely right so long as you were “in.” So long as you were LCMS, thought men should be in charge, and toed the party line, it felt like a city on a hill. I know, because I absolutely felt that way while I was there for a lot of the time I was there. Being an insider wasn’t just great, it was also, often, blissful ignorance that anyone was outside. After all, if we were experiencing this lovely joyful celebration of God, if we could really feel God’s working and presence in a chapel service or a late night call to prayer around a bonfire, how could it be anything but perfection? And how could anyone not want the same thing? And, importantly, how could they not want it in the same way?
That’s what makes this all feel so complex and, to use a sort of silly term, “yucky” about the whole thing. Because the second I was on the outside, I saw the willingness of people on the inside to perpetuate that identity “at any cost” as Danker wrote. A friend sicced an unknown seminarian on me to tell me that both I and my wife would be going to hell for thinking women could preach. Other friends disappeared, whether from the age-old Facebook friends list or entirely out of our lives. People I thought would be by my side throughout my life are no more than fragments of memory now. There was “no room in the brotherhood” for a man like me. And, like those attacked during the purge of the LCMS 50 years ago, I felt firsthand the equivocation between the perfection of the LCMS and the inerrancy they ascribe to Scripture. Questioning the LCMS view on anything wasn’t just questioning the LCMS, it was questioning Scripture and, by proxy, God!
So now, we’re here, and CUAA feels like this kind of epic thing in my life; a crucible through which I passed. Yes, there were good times–great times. That’s what makes it all so very hard. Because what was there could have been amazing. But if you stepped a toe out of line, God help you. The hashtag #becauseofconcordia is being used by people working to save CUAA. But I know that a few dollars–even the several million dollars that the campus needs to be in the black–aren’t enough to save CUAA. Only God can save CUAA and the LCMS. From itself.
Maranatha.
Links
Formerly Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) or Wisconsin Synod (WELS)– A Facebook group I’ve created for people who are former members of either of these church bodies to share stories, support each other, and try to bring change. Note: Anything you post on the internet has the potential to be public and shared anywhere, so if you join and post, be aware of that.
Leaving the LCMS/WELS– Not sure about whether to leave or thinking about leaving? Do you want to others who are thinking along the same lines? I created a group for those who are contemplating leaving these denominations, as well.
Why I left the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod Links Hub– Want to follow the whole series? Here’s a hub post with links to all the posts as well as related topics.
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: “Nobody’s Mother: Artermis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament” by Sandra L. Glahn
Nobody’s Mother by Sandra L. Glahn is a detailed look at questions about Artemis’s influence in Ephesians and the NT as well as specifically at 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
Glahn, after some discussion of why it’s worth taking a fresh look at Artemis in the NT, dives into Ephesus and Artemis across several chapters. For example, a common argument I’ve seen is that Artemis in Ephesus was associated with prostitution and that this should provide a background for how texts related to Artemis might play out. Glahn, however, argues that this is not the case and that the evidence for prostitution as a connection with Artemis is missing either Empire-wide or in the city of Ephesus specifically. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case as Artermis is consistently associated with chastity and virginity. Artemis, one might say, is “Nobody’s Mother.”
Artemis was also associated with childbirth and midwifing, to the extent that she was seen as taking the pain of childbirth away. This, Glahn argues later, explains some of the complexities behind the 1 Timothy passage. One example of this is that the argument of being saved through or persevering through childbearing appears to be a reference to Artemis and has the author of 1 Timothy essentially giving readers the advice to set aside an idol–the Greek god Artemis–for Christ as Lord.
Glahn also applies some of these findings to how to read the rest of the text, noting that having Artemis in Ephesus and the related background provided in the foregoing chapters explains some of how Paul might have been arguing against false teaching and confronting the Artemis cult more directly.
Nobody’s Mother is a deep book that makes several well-informed arguments about topics related to NT interpretation. It is recommended highly.
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.
Book Review: “C.S. Lewis in America” by Mark A. Noll
C.S. Lewis in America: Readings and Reception, 1935-1947 is a fascinating look at how C.S. Lewis was received in the United States as he published theological and other works. Mark Noll is one of the most prodigious and intriguing historians of the church in America writing today. The book is mostly focused on the question of how Lewis was received in America, but other contributors introduce a number of other topics that broadens the appeal even more.
Noll’s comments are centered around the initial, largely positive American Catholic response to Lewis, then on his reception among secular writers, and finally on Lewis’s reception among American evangelicals. Responses to these chapters focus on race and religion in America at the time of Lewis, the interplay of The Catholic Hour and The Lutheran Hour on American audiences, and the way Lewis helped foster ways of communication with Christian themes. These responses introduce a number of additional topics that are sometimes only tangentially related to C.S. Lewis, but are all well worth the time to read.
C.S. Lewis in America is a fascinating read, especially for those wanting to know more about C.S. Lewis’s reception. Noll and the other contributors introduce a number of topics that make the book quite readable and with broader appeal.
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.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 