Christianity

Bonhoeffer and the Challenge of Ecumenism

Ecumenism–the work of bringing unity to worldwide Christianity–is a constantly challenging work throughout the history of the church. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was deeply involved in ecumenical movements in his own time. One fascinating aspect of this is that while Bonhoeffer worked for ecumenism, he also was quite clear that the German Christian Church, which had been taken over by the Nazis, was no longer a Christian church and could not be designated as such. In calling out the German Christians, Bonhoeffer presented one of the great challenges of ecumenism: how to define “in” or “out” when it comes to Christianity.

The obvious and immediate objection here, of course, is that the German Christian church was actually being run by Nazis. Historical retrospect with 20/20 vision allows us to say that clearly, such a church had indeed lost the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, at the time, such historical vision did not exist. Instead, we can see some of the challenges inherent in ecumenical work in a fascinating exchange Bonhoeffer had with Canon Leonard Hodgson[1]. The exchange can be found in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Works in English, Volume 14: Theological Education at Finkenwalede: 1935-1937. Bonhoeffer was invited by Hodgson in 1935 to come to the World Council of Churches as a visitor to the meeting of the Continuation Committee. Bonhoeffer declined, writing, “I should very much like to attend the meeting. But there is first of all the question if representativies of the Reichskirchenregierung [Reich Church Government (of the Nazi-sanctioned German Christian Church)] will be present, which would make it impossible for me to come” (DBWE 14, 68). Hodgson wrote back, imploring Bonhoeffer to attend. After noting that representatives of the German Christian church would be attending, Hodgson wrote, “I think you will understand our position when I say that we cannot, as a Movement [the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement], exclude the representatives of any Church which ‘accepts our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.’ Right from the start, there has been a general invitation to all such churches, and we cannot arrogate to ourselves the right to discriminate between them…” (Ibid, 69).

Defining a Christian church as one which “accepts our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior” seems like a reasonable step, especially within an ecumenical movement. But is it enough? That must always be the lingering question, and I’m not sure it is one I can answer. Bonhoeffer, however, answered Hodgson directly. After thanking Hodgson for the repeated invitation to attend, he wrote, “Can there be anything finer and more promising to a Christian pastor and teacher than to co-operate in the preparation for a great oecumenical[2] synod…?” But, then he went on to note that the Confessional Church in Germany did not believe the German Christian church did in fact believe that Jesus Christ is God and Savior. Wrote Bonhoeffer, “There may be single representatives…. who propound a theology which is to be called a Christian theology… But the teaching as well as the action of the responsible leaders of the Reich Church has clearly proved that this church does no longer serve Christ but that it serves the Antichrist… The Reich Church…. continues to betray the one Lord Jesus Christ, for no man can serve two masters…” (DBWE 14, 71-72).

It is hardly possible to issue a more direct and explicit statement than Bonhoeffer did regarding the status of the German Christian Church. He simply asserted: it serves the Antichrist. He went on to note the Confessional Church’s condemnation of the German Christian Church and some specific points thereof.

Hodgson, however, persisted. And his letter is one that highlights so many difficulties with ecumenism. Before diving in further, it is worth noting I am in favor of ecumenism, generally. Just as Bonhoeffer quoted Jesus’s words in John 17:21 to note that Christ wishes all of His followers to be one; so we should also wish for that and work towards it. However, where do lines get drawn, if at all? And surely, a church being taken over by a Nazi state is enough to draw the line? But even so, the historical difficulty of doing so, reflected in the words of Hodgson, should give us some fuel for thought in our own time.

Hodgson countered first by noting the 400+ years of the Ecumenical Movement, always seeking to unite the churches that had been separated. The Movement itself, Hodgson argued, must never act in behalf of individual church bodies; instead it worked as a kind of outside guiding body to bring those individual churches together. Hodgson highlighted that acceptance of Jesus Christ as God and Savior is the “one and only qualification” for a Christian church and that “the Movement has never taken upon itself to decide which churches conform to this definition and which do not” (DBWE 14, 78). He raised a neutral example of a Czechoslovakian National Church and internal debates with others over whether that church was Trinitarian or Unitarian. Turning to the Confessional and Reich church in Germany, Hodgson noted that the former appeared to have stated that the latter no longer accepted the sole criterion required by ecumenism. However, he also argued that the Reich church did not seem to see itself as outside the bounds of that confession; and who is the Ecumenical Movement to arbitrate such disagreements (Ibid)? After all, if they took up the question of the Confessional vs. Reich Church, where does it end? Could not various American churches raise charges against each other that, even while denying such a denial existed, one church does not really believe in Jesus Christ as God and Savior? Wrote Hodgson, “If we once begin doing this kind of thing, would there be any end to it?” (Ibid, 79). Finally, Hodgson wrote that the Movement doesn’t necessitate setting aside all differences. Instead, it allowed for people from different churches to stand side-by-side and even highlight differences; not with the goal of eliminating or washing them over, but with the goal of understanding and to “speak the truth in love” (Ibid, 80).

Bonhoeffer wouldn’t attend the conference, and while he would reach out to Hodgson four years later in 1939, Bonhoeffer would again be met with the kind of “open to interpretation” answer Hodgson gave in the letters of 1935.

This fascinating historical insight into arguing over the inclusion (or not) of a church literally overtaken by Nazis should serve as at least a partial warning to those interested in ecumenism. And, again, I am largely favorable to the idea. But is it possible that the definition defended by Hodgson is too broad? Or, is it possible that Bonhoeffer’s own certainty was too strong? I don’t think the latter is true. It should be possible for someone to look at a church body and say “the teaching as well as the action” of some church body, Christian leader, or whatever can be defined as no longer reflecting Christ as God and Savior. But how does one go about doing that? And how much should a body like the World Council of Churches stand back from seemingly intramural conflict?

Surely in today’s era, there are American churches that would label others as outside the bounds of Christianity or serving the Antichrist. Anti-LGBTQ+ church bodies might say that affirming church bodies are un- or anti-Christian and vice versa. The rise of Christian Nationalism begs the question of how one can serve two masters–the Nation State and Christ. The prominent sacrifices of orthopraxy for the sake of purported orthodoxy could yield countless other difficulties even as those who claim orthodoxy for themselves argue the contrary.

All of this is to highlight what is a very frustrating situation in which we find ourselves. It is one in which we cannot easily navigate our Lord’s wishes that we might truly be one. One temptation is to give it all up and say we may just have to wait for the eschatological future in which Christ will be all in all before any of this happens. But is it worth just giving up? I don’t think that’s the case, either. Instead, I think it is worth seeing this back-and-forth between Bonhoeffer and Hodgson about a church literally overrun by Nazis as a warning. What is confessed with lips must also be done in deed. What that means for ecumenism is something we must work out with fear and trembling.

[1] Fun fact- Hodgson unsuccessfully proposed to Dorothy L. Sayers. I couldn’t see that on Wikipedia and not share it.

[2] Simply an alternate spelling of ecumenical.

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.

John Warwick Montgomery (1931-2024)

John Warwick Montgomery died on September 25, 2024. John Warwick Montgomery is the most well known apologist from Lutheran circles in decades. From within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, he fought not just external threats to apologetics, but also internal ones. As a Lutheran, he was forced by turns to defend even the prospect of apologetics from those who would lean towards fideism or some form of Lutheran irrationalism.

Montgomery was highly prominent in discussions about apologetic method. When the presuppositional method arose within Reformed circles, Montgomery was perhaps its most vocal and engaging critic. His famous (or infamous, depending on one’s stance) essay “Once Upon an A Priori” used fables to engage with presuppositional method and showed that the method would likely collapse under its own arguments when faced with an equally staunch presuppositionalist from another faith tradition. He wrote quite a bit in defense of evidentialist apologetics, and generally believed and argued that the Resurrection was historical fact and can and should be investigated as such.

Inerrancy was another of Montgomery’s pillars of argument. He argued against positions which would qualify inerrancy more, and attempted to defend it within the Lutheran tradition. He argued against other Lutherans who left his own denomination, asserting that their changed stance on inerrancy was the “fuzzification” of inerrancy to the point at which it would become unrecognizable as such. Indeed, I find his arguments to that effect fairly convincing, and that is part of the reason I don’t hold to inerrancy; it simply does not work with how the Bible was written. Montgomery would vociferously disagree, but I’m thankful to him for clarifying quite adroitly how qualifying a position like inerrancy begins to make it difficult to pin down.

Montgomery was a lawyer as well. He wrote on a vast range of topics, from law to demonology, from apologetics to historiography. His texts show a man whose mind was capable of absorbing and expanding on countless theologically-inclined topics in ways that, if they didn’t reflect particular expertise, still would show a general grasp of the topic and drive engagement with it. I have read and re-read some of his books to the point where covers are beginning to fall off. It’s often popular to read only those with whom one agrees, or to read one with whom one disagrees only to challenge and condemn. Montgomery, for me, is a constant challenging duelist. Where I disagree, I continue to find reading his works fruitful and challenging. Where I agree, I find pleasure in seeing his defense ably lay out points of impact.

I had the pleasure of meeting him at a conference in 2012. He was friendly and vivacious. The lecture he gave on religious conversion was fascinating to me at the time. I wrote up the lecture notes for a blog post here, and he sent me an email about my post, apparently thinking I had simply re-posted his lecture. He wrote, “Can you inform me as to where you obtained it and whose permission you obtained for doing so? I am willing to have you retain it on your website–but I need to know your source for posting it.” I wrote him back, explaining I had based my post upon my own notes based upon his lecture. His response was gracious, and to the point, thanking me for my detailed response and exposition of his lecture. It was my last interaction with him–I wish I’d had the courage to e-mail him again later.

Montgomery’s voice will be missed. He was an able defender of his positions and his mind wriggled into the logical holes in others’ positions in ways that made it uncomfortable to disagree with him. I admire the man, and I hope to see him in the hereafter.

SDG.

Links

John Warwick Montgomery– See all my posts tagged about John Warwick Montgomery (scroll down for more).

——

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.

“Bearing Sin as Church Community: Bonhoeffer’s Harmartiology” by Hyun Joo Kim- A fascinating look at the doctrine of sin through Bonhoeffer’s theology

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology continues to contribute enormously to discussions of theology today. What is especially rewarding about the work being done on Bonhoeffer’s corpus is finding topics that haven’t been explored as deeply as others. Hyun Joo Kim’s Bearing Sin as Church Community: Bonhoeffer’s Harmartiology specifically explores Bonhoeffer’s theology for the doctrine of sin, and the book richly rewards careful reading.

One of the central beliefs of Lutheranism, Catholicism, Calvinism, and several other branches of Christianity is that of original sin. For my own part, I find it an incredibly fruitful doctrine when contemplating the state of the world. Humans are incredible adept and finding imaginative ways to bring harm to each other. The horrors of the world are immense, and for me, one way to explain humanity’s awfulness to itself is to hold to a notion of original sin. Bonhoeffer’s views, by Kim, also make the position of original sin less incredible to believe, particularly in regards to explaining how it works. Instead of being linked to a (likely non-extant) original human couple, or being passed along through intercourse, Bonhoeffer’s view makes original sin and the Fall linked to human community and brings it into his ecclesiology. It all helps lend itself to his broader ethical stance, while still preserving the Lutheran view of original sin and guilt.

Before diving into Bonhoeffer’s doctrine of sin (harmartiology), Kim dives into the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is closely linked with the notion of concupiscence–original sin as being transferred through the act of intercourse. Obviously, there is much more to it, but for Augustine, explaining original sin eventually boiled down to a kind of generational passing down through the act of intercourse itself. This saddled the doctrine of original sin with quite a bit of theological and other baggage. Kim then outlines Luther’s move from Augustinian original sin to a shift of seeing original sin integrated within Luther’s Christocentric theology. In essence, Luther’s focus on Christocentrism leads to a holistic theology that, while maintaining several aspects of Augustine’s view of original sin, centers Christ even in the doctrine of original sin. Luther’s view already started driving a wedge between concupiscence and original sin because while he apparently viewed the former as an essential aspect of transmitting the latter, he also held that original sin is forgiven in Baptism but that concupiscence remains a powerful influence on humankind (43).

Next, Kim turns to Bonhoeffer’s view of original sin. This includes a rejection of concupiscence as the basis for original sin. Rather than framing original sin in the “the biological and involuntary transmission of culpability…” Bonhoeffer frames original sin in “the relational and ethical bearing of the sin of others” (71). One of the main aspects of Bonhoeffer’s ethic is that the Christian has freedom for the other, and in this case, his doctrine of sin echoes that but in the bearing of sin for the other; it remains an alien guilt imputed, but a guilt nonetheless. Bonhoeffer’s reflection on original sin moves the alien culpability of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin from the sovereignty of God and to the church community. For Bonhoeffer, “the culpability of Adam is not biologically inherited; however, it is inseprably related to all human beings individually and corporately by the universal sinfulness after the fall” (72). This has some relation to Orthodox understandings of the fall [so far as I know from thinkers like Richard Swinburne–I admit very little direct knowledge of Orthodox teaching on the topic]. Bonhoeffer’s move, however, neither requires an original couple from whom all humanity is descended, such that the culpability can be passed down from one to another like a genetic lineage; nor does it need a specific means by which the original sin can be passed along. By sidestepping these two issues, essentially assigning guilt not to the individual through inheritance but rather through the very nature of humanity as sinful beings, he avoids many of the modern challenges to original sin, such as the question of human evolution–despite this clearly not being in Bonhoeffer’s mind as he wrote about the doctrine.[1]

Kim does draw some distinctions between Bonhoeffer’s earlier thinking on the doctrine of sin and his later theology, but to me these largely seem to be things that could be reconciled together as a continuum of the same theology. And of course the whole story is not told simply through Bonhoeffer’s views on original sin. Quite a bit more is featured on Bonhoeffer’s thoughts on sin and Christian life and ethics. Kim pays careful attention to Bonhoeffer’s book Creation and Fall and his exegesis of the Genesis narratives here. Kim’s argument is that Creation and Fall exists in the same sphere as his other works, Sanctorum Communio and Act and Being, and as such, it focuses on communal personalism and still integrates aspects of Lutheran and Augustinian notions into the reading.

Bearing Sin as Church Community is an absolutely essential read for those wishing to dive deeply into Bonhoeffer’s theology. It also is an exceptionally powerful theological work that demands close and careful reading. It provides new ways forward in understanding some of the core doctrines of some branches of Christianity, and new challenges to those that do not hold those doctrines. Highly recommended.

Notes

[1] It seems fairly clear in reading Bonhoeffer’s corpus both that he was largely aware of scientific consensus on his day on various topics, which would have included the evolutionary lineage of humankind, and also that he was supremely unconcerned with scientific truths related to theology. For him, it seems, there was no conflict between Christianity and science unless Christians themselves decided to make such a conflict by purposely moving theology into the sphere of science (or vice versa) when that is an utterly inappropriate move. See, for example, his brief comments about science near the beginning of Creation and Fall.

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.

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: “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.

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 plants 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 plants 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 plant during the pre-Flood time and so it happened that only that kind of plant 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.