Fundamental Theology: A Protestant Perspective [2 ed.] 0567705692, 9780567705693

Citation preview

Fundamental Theology

ii

Fundamental Theology A Protestant Perspective Second Edition Matthew L. Becker

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First edition published in Great Britain 2013 This second edition published 2024 Copyright © Matthew L. Becker, 2024 Matthew L. Becker has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on pp. xvi–xviii constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover image: Munderloh Window (detail), 1956. Designer: Peter Dohmen Studios, St. Paul, Minnesota. Chapel of the Resurrection, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana. Photographer: Matthew L. Becker All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Becker, Matthew L., author. Title: Fundamental theology : a protestant perspective / Matthew L. Becker. Description: Second edition. | New York : T&T Clark, 2024. | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Identifiers: LCCN 2023029736 (print) | LCCN 2023029737 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567705693 (paperback) | ISBN 9780567705709 (hardback) | ISBN 9780567705716 (epub) | ISBN 9780567705723 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Theology. Classification: LCC BR118 .B3295 2015 (print) | LCC BR118 (ebook) | DDC 230–dc23/eng/20230921 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023029736 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023029737 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5677-0570-9 PB: 978-0-5677-0569-3 ePDF: 978-0-5677-0572-3 eBook: 978-0-5677-0571-6 Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.blo​omsb​ury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents

Preface  viii Acknowledgments  xvi Abbreviations  xix

Introduction: Ways into Theology  1

Part I  Christian Theology 1 Traditions of Christianity  29 An historical overview  32 The distribution of Christian traditions  49 Apostolic tradition and the traditions of Christendom  54

2 Traditions of Christian Theology  63 Ancient Greek theology  63 Ancient Jewish theology  68 Early and medieval Christian theology  72 Reformation and post-Reformation theology  82 Modern Christian theology  87 The last century of Christian theology  94

3 What Is Christian Theology?  116

Part II  The Subject of Christian Theology 4 The Natural Knowledge of God  139 5 Natural and Philosophical Theology  167

vi

Contents

6 Atheisms  191 Critiques of God and religion  193 The issue of theodicy  205 Skepticism about the skeptics  210 The persistence of God in human experience  218

7 Special Revelation and Christian Faith  236 The hidden God  236 The gospel and Christian faith  244 Special revelation in Christian theology  255 Believing and knowing  266 The basic structures of faith-statement  271

8 Sources and Norms of Christian Theology  278 The issue of sources and norms  279 Sources and norms of Christian theology  283

9 Interpreting the Scriptures  323 Avoiding extremes  324 Theological hermeneutics  342 Excursus: Martin Luther, “Concerning the Study of Theology” (1539)  354

10 Jesus as the Center of Salvation History  364 A salvation-historical approach to the Bible  364 Sources for the historical Jesus  373 The quest for the historical Jesus  375 The actions and teaching of Jesus  384 Opposition to Jesus, the death of Jesus, and his resurrection  392 The re-creating Spirit and the new creation  405

11 Key Themes in Special Revelation  414 God the Creator  414 Christ the Redeemer  423 The Holy Spirit  439 Trinitarian theology  443 The church  446 Last things  453 The promise of the gospel  453

Contents

Part III Christian Theology within the University 12 Christian Theology as a University Discipline  467 Placing Christian theology within a university  467 Theological encyclopedia  474 Dividing theology  477

13 The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology  494 Fundamental theology  496 Historical theology  500 Practical theology  508

14 Christian Theology and the Humanities  520 Christ and culture  525 Christian theology within the humanities  533

15 Christian Theology and the Sciences  554 Modern encounters between theology and the sciences  555 Theology and the human sciences  566 The anthropic principle  570 Creationism and intelligent design  572 Rethinking the Christian doctrines of creation and sin  579 Barbour’s four models  582 Christianity and the ecological crisis  587 Leading figures  589

Postscript  601 Glossary of Names  605 Glossary of Terms  635 Select Bibliography  668 Index of Persons  703 Index of Scripture References  713 Index of Subjects  723

vii

Preface

The aim of this book is to introduce college and seminary students to the academic discipline of Christian theology. The book thus serves as an orientation to theological prolegomena (“introductory remarks”) or fundamental theology since it addresses the issues that are foundational and basic to the discipline. In Christian theology such matters include the definition of theology, the reality of God (the One who makes knowledge of God possible), the nature and interpretation of Holy Scripture (the normative means by which God is more truly known), and the nature of faith as a positive response to the word of God. The book also sets forth what has traditionally been called a theological encyclopedia (“circle of knowledge”) because it describes the various branches of theology that together form it into a unified academic subject, one that intentionally seeks interdisciplinary engagement with all other academic disciplines. Fundamental or foundational theology should not be confused with religious fundamentalism. In fact, the latter is typically quite uninterested and often opposed to academic theology in a university setting. By contrast, fundamental theology makes use of human reasoning for the sake of investigating and understanding the basis or ground (Latin: fundamentum) of the Christian faith in a meaningful and intellectually responsible manner. While fundamental theology cannot possibly hope to establish irrefutable proof for that basis, given both the limitations of human beings and the nature of the subject theologians seek to understand, it does want to respond intelligently to criticisms of that subject and to understand the central faith claims made by Christians. Thus, the first subdiscipline in fundamental theology is philosophical theology, which defines the subject matter of Christian theology, examines the basic arguments for and against the reality of God, explores the nature of both general revelation and special revelation, and summarizes the basic faith statements that arise in response to divine special revelation. Given the normative centrality of the biblical texts, philosophical theology also investigates the issue of the sources and norms in theology, biblical interpretation, and the key themes or topics that together identify the subject of Christian theology. In view of the diversity of theological disciplines, fundamental theology also seeks to orient the student to the whole of theology, to provide an account of theology as a unified field of study. This aim is undertaken within the second subdiscipline of fundamental theology, namely, theological encyclopedia. The genre of theological

Preface

encyclopedia should not be confused with that of a general encyclopedia, as if it were providing an exhaustive and alphabetized summary of the various bits and pieces of theological knowledge. The goal of a theological encyclopedia is actually much more modest, if still quite challenging: to provide a rationale for the discipline of theology as a whole, to offer a brief introduction to its branches or subdisciplines, and to highlight some of the ongoing problems within the discipline. Given that fundamental theology addresses current challenges for theology, it seeks to be up to date. As Roman Catholic theologian Heinrich Fries has said, this subdiscipline of theology cannot merely “repeat old truths; there has to be translation in the truest sense of the word, from shore to shore, from the past to today; there has to be a merging of horizons.”1 Fries also rightly noted that fundamental or foundational theology has the duty of being true to the origins of the Christian message, while relating that message to the contemporary needs and questions of human beings. Fundamental theology thus needs continual updating, as those needs and questions change. Recent accounts of fundamental theology have been written almost exclusively by Roman Catholic scholars and have been directed primarily toward students and professors in Roman Catholic schools, seminaries, and graduate programs of theological study.2 A major aim of these works is to offer a scholarly defense of Roman Catholic teachings and the authoritative means by which the Roman Catholic magisterium, that is, teaching authorities, including ultimately the pope, articulates and maintains Catholic teaching, for example, through the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Over the past fifty years, some Protestant studies in fundamental theology have also been published in North America, but these are mostly translations of older German works that were more suited for advanced seminarians or students in European universities preparing for vocations as pastors or theologians.3 While these works also aim to offer a scholarly defense of Christian teaching in relation to 1. Heinrich Fries, Fundamental Theology, trans. Robert J. Daly, S.J. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 1. 2. See, for example, Andrew Willard Jones and Louis St. Hilaire, Evidence of Things Unseen: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology (Gastonia, NC: TAN Books, 2021); Guy Mancini, Fundamental Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018); Lawrence Feingold, Faith Comes from What Is Heard: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2016); Neil Omerod and Christiaan Jacobs-Vandegeer, Foundational Theology: A New Approach to Catholic Fundamental Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015); Gerald O’Collins, Rethinking Fundamental Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); and Fernando Ocáriz and Arturo Blanco, Fundamental Theology (Woodridge, IL: Midwest Theological Forum, 2009). Older important works include David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981); and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Foundational Theology: Jesus and the Church (New York: Crossroad, 1984). 3. Wilfried Joest, Fundamentaltheologie: Theologische Grundlagen- und Methodenprobleme (Fundamental Theology: Issues Regarding Theological Principles and Methods), 2nd edn (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981);

ix

x

Preface

other ways of knowing, they do so within a Protestant theological framework that is oriented toward biblical interpretation (starting with the New Testament [NT] witnesses), the theological principles involved in such interpretation, and the critical role that theology can play in interdisciplinary dialogue within the university. In these Protestant accounts of fundamental theology, theologians also level serious criticism against church teachings and traditions they see as misguided, ill-informed, or in conflict with the truth of authentic biblical teaching. These studies in fundamental theology, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, are important, and they remain helpful resources for current theological reflection. But Christian theology in an undergraduate liberal arts college, whether church-related or not, takes a slightly different shape and has different goals than in a parochial Catholic high school or a graduate program in Protestant theology. The shape of theology and its goals within a liberal arts context guide the discussion here. My main reason for doing so is that many American college students (and first-year seminarians) never seriously engage the nature of Christian theology as an academic subject. They may not understand the relationships among its branches, nor appreciate the intentions of academic theologians to positively engage the other scholarly disciplines. This book was written to encourage students to think about these concerns. And it recognizes that not every undergraduate student, even in church-related institutions, is “religious” or Christian, or is familiar with the principal traditions of Christian theology. What is Christian theology? Why study it as an undergraduate student, especially if one is not preparing for service in a Christian church or if one is not Christian or even religious? Why does theology belong as an academic discipline within North American universities? What is its subject? What are its sources and norm(s)? What knowledge and skills are necessary for a person to become competent in the discipline? What are its subdisciplines, and how do they relate to one another? How does Christian theology relate to the humanities, the arts, and the sciences in the university? These are the main questions addressed in this book. While the book focuses primarily upon formal topics within fundamental Christian theology and theological encyclopedia, including theological method and hermeneutical principles (principles of interpretation), it also addresses substantive matters regarding God, Jesus, human beings, and other theological subjects. Christian theology ought to lead people “to understand God truly,” to liberate people from ignorance and unexamined prejudice, and to liberate them for critical and creative thinking and action in relation to God, other people, and the world.4 It Gerhard Ebeling, The Study of Theology, trans. Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis McDonagh (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); and Christoph Schwöbel, God: Action and Revelation (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992). 4. See David H. Kelsey, To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological about a Theological School (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992).

Preface

should assist individuals in becoming more appreciative of the religious dimensions of human experience, more knowledgeable about the varieties of Christian experience, more critical of the negative and destructive elements within all human institutions, including religious ones, more aware of the means and norms by which one might be able to discern a problematic element within a given religious tradition, and more comfortable about expressing an understanding of the nature of one’s own religious faith or personal commitments. Within my own university, I have sought to understand and teach Christian theology as a person of faith, indeed as one whose theological understanding is shaped and normed by the sixteenth-century Lutheran confessions. I am an ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity, a Lutheran ministerium devoted to daily prayer, obedience to Jesus, hearing the Word, receiving the sacraments, providing mutual pastoral consolation and care, and engaging in theological reflection. As an aspect of my confessional commitment, I take seriously the summons of Philip Melanchthon, the principal author of the Augsburg Confession (1530), to return continually to the historic and normative sources of the evangelical and catholic faith for the sake of furthering ecumenical discussion among divided Christians and of working toward the unity for which Jesus prayed (cf. Jn 17).5 While I am also North American, white, and male, I have lived and worked in urban (south Chicago; Portland, OR), suburban (northwest Chicago; northwest Indiana), and rural settings, serving as a pastor and a professor to diverse people from many cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. In these various vocational settings, I have tried to be particularly attentive to those who are struggling at the margins of society, who are underrepresented in the academy, and who continue to instruct me with respect to the connections between faith, justice, and lived experience. I am grateful for all that I have learned from my students and colleagues, for how they have helped to change me for the better during the past three decades. In the ecclesial and academic settings in which I serve, I have also tried to convey the benefits of allowing Christianity to be approached critically through the same interpretive strategies brought to other human phenomena. In this respect I do not hesitate to indicate where and why the Christian tradition, its texts, and its institutions have been criticized in the past and are still being criticized today. Protestant fundamental theology thus tends to be quite different from most forms of Roman Catholic fundamental theology, which generally seek to affirm the wholeness of Catholic Tradition. Richard Hughes’s (b. 1943) description of a Lutheran approach to “tradition” is helpful since it reminds us of the need always to reassess and rethink one’s commitments and understandings even while affirming them. According to 5. Here the term evangelical means “oriented toward the good news” announced by the apostles of Jesus, while the word catholic refers to what is orthodox (“normatively correct”) and “of the whole church.”

xi

xii

Preface

Hughes, the Lutheran tradition offers “a strategy of continual theological reflection.” Embracing the notion of paradox that is near the heart of authentic Lutheran theology, he states: Lutherans can never absolutize their own perspectives, even their theological perspectives. They must always be reassessing and rethinking, and they must always be in dialogue with themselves and with others. But there is more, for if Lutherans must always be in dialogue with themselves and with others, it is equally true to say that they are free to be in dialogue with themselves and with others. For knowledge that one is justified by grace through faith grants the Christian scholar a profound sense of freedom to question his or her own best insights, to revise them, or to discard them and start again. This is the genius of the Lutheran tradition.6

Hughes’s description parallels the epigraph to the 1983 Jefferson Lecture delivered by the renowned theologian Jaroslav Pelikan (1923–2006), which is a quote from Goethe’s Faust: “Was du ererbt von deinen Vätern hast, Erwirb es, um es zu besitzen” (“What you have inherited from your fathers, acquire it to make it your own”).7 While there are many challenges to the study of Christian theology in the complicated environment of a modern liberal arts university, there are also many reasons to sustain and deepen such activity. Not only does Christian theology address important questions of human self-understanding that are common to the academy, but it also engages these and other questions on the basis of venerable intellectual traditions that provide a critical perspective on central problems within society, religious communities, and the university itself. Academic theology seeks to avoid “the victory of unexamined orthodoxy,” whether of the religious or of the secular kind, but it is finally also passionately concerned about the truth of God and about other subjects of singular, ultimate importance.8 Christian theology, like other theologies (and all scholarly worldviews or ideologies, for that matter), ought not avoid articulating specific commitments, exploring the reasons for those commitments, and, where appropriate, critiquing them. In this revised edition of Fundamental Theology, I have tried to keep my gaze on two different foci: the received traditions of the wider Christian community on the one hand, and the contemporary situation of the university on the other, which includes people without (explicit) faith or who come from non-Christian

6. Richard T. Hughes, How Christian Faith Can Sustain the Life of the Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 88 (emphasis in original). 7. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), epigraph. The actual quote is found in Goethe, Faust (Part One), Night (Faust), lines 682–3. 8. Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), xiv.

Preface

and nonreligious backgrounds. Thus, one task of the academic study of Christian theology, as it moves between these two foci, is to seek to understand the historical development of that faith, to discern how that faith is expressed today in a variety of sometimes conflicting ways, and to investigate where that faith overlaps with other religious and nonreligious commitments, beliefs, and practices. Christian theology today must be ecumenical, that is, it must seek engagement with theological voices across the spectrum of Christianity in the search for common truth, the unity of faith, and the fullness of human community. As twentieth-century theologian Edmund Schlink (1903–84) stated, we “have to inquire about the treasure that is hidden in the various traditions and to seek the unity of the church, not in uniformity but in the community of traditions.”9 In today’s troubled world, such ecumenical engagement must extend to the world’s other major religions, philosophies, and “ways of life.” Another such task of Christian academic theology is to place its historic traditions and the current expressions and understandings of them into a position of being questioned. Thus, Christian academic theology must question both received Christian teaching and practice and engage the criticisms that are leveled against that complex tradition by its fiercest critics. Of course, theology also has a responsibility to raise critical questions of its own about human beings, their beliefs and practices, their social institutions, and their most profound and persisting conundrums. Indeed, a principal concern of Christian fundamental theology is to offer a defense of the Christian faith in view of external criticisms and objections. In that sense, this form of theology seeks to fulfill an ancient Christian exhortation: “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3.15-16). Although I have written the book for college students and seminarians, and have done so from within my own church tradition, I hope all readers, regardless of their (non)religious and educational background, will find the book useful for studying central themes in Christian theology. I have learned that the first edition has helped graduate students refresh themselves on the basics of Christian historical and systematic theology. Several pastors and congregational youth leaders have used sections of the book profitably in small-group discussions with high school students, young adults, and “seekers.” I hope this new edition will continue to be useful in these nonuniversity settings. The chapters are divided into sections (and subsections) to make navigating the book a little easier. (Some students may want to read the book from section to section rather than from chapter to chapter.)

9. Edmund Schlink, “The Significance of the Eastern and Western Traditions for Christendom,” in ESW, 1.296.

xiii

xiv

Preface

Some readers may spot places in my presentation where this or that theologian (or set of theologians) has influenced my thinking. For those who are interested in pursuing deeper investigation into a particular topic, I have provided suggestions for further reading at the end of each chapter. These suggestions include several classic theological works that are still worth consulting, as well as more recent studies. In this introductory work, I have deliberately chosen to focus on major and enduring thinkers within the mainstream Christian tradition. In addition, the book highlights only some of the persisting disputes in contemporary theology. After teaching introductory undergraduate courses in this subject for more than thirty years, I continue to maintain that American college students and seminarians today need to become more aware of the principal Christian theological voices from the past—the ones that still have an abiding influence upon contemporary theological understandings—before they can enter meaningfully into conversations that are critical of those voices and that offer contrary understandings from those of bygone days. Nevertheless, I am now seeking to give greater attention to often marginalized theological voices that are addressing thorny difficulties in creative, helpful ways. This new edition thus tries to identify points of agreement between those who see theology more as a form of praxis—theology as an aid to social-political activism—and those who see it more as theoria—theology in service to the truth of God. While I still lean toward the latter understanding, the former must be taken seriously. To paraphrase Albert Einstein for my own purposes: theology unconcerned about truth is blind, while theology lacking praxis is lame.10 Because the book aims to describe the broad contours of the forest of Christian theologians, it only points out a few of the more interesting trees, at least those—old and new—that have captured and kept this author’s attention. Much is necessarily left unmentioned and unexplored. My hope is that students will take seriously the suggestions for further reading to begin their own investigations of paths that prove interesting to them. While this second edition follows the basic outline of the first, it has been significantly revised in several ways: the introduction and first chapter have undergone significant revision, while the overview of the history of theology has been slightly expanded. In the process of reworking the chapters on natural theology, I have added new material and rearranged the ordering of some of the sections. What had been a section on atheism in general has now been expanded into a separate chapter that explores more fully the varieties of atheism. While I still end with special revelation as the normative basis for Christian faith, the route by which I get there, via natural theology, has changed. In the chapter on special revelation, I have added new material on the phenomenology of faith that examines the various structures of 10. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”: Albert Einstein, “Science and Religion,” in Ideas and Opinions (New York: Crown, 1954), 46.

Preface

faith statements (e.g., doxology, prayer, witness, teaching, proclamation, confession of faith).11 I have also significantly revised the chapter on sources and norms in Christian theology, giving more attention to the Old Testament canon, and I have added a new chapter on Jesus as the center of salvation history. I have also expanded the chapter on the key themes in special revelation. During the past several years I have come to see the serious limitations of the way in which I had divided the subdisciplines of theology in the first edition. I have now placed doctrinal theology within historical theology, following biblical theology. I have divided “fundamental theology” into “philosophical theology” and “theological encyclopedia.” The chapter on “theology and the sciences” has also been significantly revised to include more attention to enduring problems in this important area of discussion and debate. Within the pluralistic setting of a liberal arts university, it makes good sense first to highlight some common human experiences that lead in the direction of religion and theology, and then to proceed to offer a brief historical overview of the history of Christianity followed by a narrower description of the history of theology within that larger Christian framework. On that basis, one can define more formally what Christian academic theology is today, explore its subject matter, and describe how it relates to other academic pursuits. Wherever I felt it was important, I have placed in parentheses the original publication date of a work after the title in the initial citation. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV), copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved. I am grateful to the many students and colleagues who have helped me to think more carefully about theology, and whose conversations and inquiries inform various parts of this new edition. I hope it will further contribute to the ongoing renewal of theology and, more importantly, will lead its readers to deeper reflection about God and other theological subjects. Matthew L. Becker Valparaiso, IN The Feast of Pentecost 2023

11. I am here following the lead of the twentieth-century German Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink. See his important essay, “The Structure of the Dogmatic Statement as an Ecumenical Issue,” in ESW, 1.67–125. Cf. Edmund Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.115–39.

xv

Acknowledgments

I would never have become interested in Christian theology were it not for my paternal grandfather, Emil Becker†, who was a Lutheran pastor and hospital chaplain (and my childhood hero). Not only did he baptize me but through him and his ministry I sensed a call from God to serve in that same vocation. My grandfather’s example of pastoral love and care has been a constant, if unfulfilled, ideal for my own work and ministry. My parents not only lovingly encouraged me in my academic pursuits but frequently supported those endeavors financially. I am profoundly grateful to them. L. Dean Hempelmann† deepened my understanding of the Christian faith, both at St. John Lutheran Church, Salem, OR, where he served as a pastor during my youth, and at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, where he taught me pastoral theology. His way of relating “Athens” and “Jerusalem,” “the academy” and “the church,” has significantly influenced my own attempts at doing the same. Hans Spalteholz† was my first undergraduate theology professor at Concordia College, Portland, OR. Over the half century that I knew him, he taught me more about the Christian faith and discipleship than anyone else. He was a principal mentor to me, first as my teacher, then as a colleague when he graciously made way for me to join that faculty, and in the last two decades of his life as a long-distance conversation partner and frequent collaborator. In many ways he became a second father to me. Those who knew him will recognize his influence throughout the book. I dedicated the first edition to him and to two other professors at Concordia who also were my teachers and then colleagues: Dick Hill, who has enriched my life in so many ways, who allowed me to team-teach courses with him in the humanities and theology (who also gave valuable feedback on this second edition of the book), and with whom I have had innumerable significant conversations about life and other humane matters; and Chuck Kunert, who has shaped my understanding of the natural sciences and their relationship to Christian theology and with whom I was privileged to have taught several undergraduate seminars in science and theology. I am grateful for the abiding friendship I have with Dick and Chuck. Several other teachers and colleagues have impacted my approach to academic theology as well, and I wish to acknowledge them, too: Dwaine Brandt, Herbert Hoefer, Sidney Johnson†, Norman Metzler, Richard Reinisch†, John Scheck†, Robert Schmidt, Tom Wolbrecht, and E. P. Weber† (when I studied and taught at Concordia

Acknowledgments

University, Portland); Norman Nagel† and John Johnson (at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis); Robert Bertram† and Carl Braaten (at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago); Brian Gerrish, David Tracy, Bernard McGinn, Anne Carr†, Hans Dieter Betz, and Langdon Gilkey† (at the University of Chicago Divinity School). I am deeply indebted to these individuals for all that they have taught me. When I was a college student and then a seminarian, Martin Marty’s books were a regular staple in my intellectual diet. I learned of him and his scholarly work initially through a few of my college professors who had been his students. Later I read his autobiography, By Way of Response (1981), which furthered my desire to study theology at the University of Chicago. There he became a role model and, more significantly, a friend. While I do not pretend to have his gifts, I do aspire to the same kind of balance between church and academy that has been evident in his life and work. One would be hard-pressed to find someone more familiar with the promises and problems surrounding the nature and place of Christian theology in a university than he, so I was truly honored that he wrote the afterword to the first edition. Of course, he, too, cannot be held responsible for any flaws in the second edition. I am grateful to Valparaiso University for supporting me as I worked on the revisions for this new version. In the first half of 2019 and the second half of 2022 I was granted leave from my teaching so that I could complete further research for the book. I especially want to thank again Mark Schwehn and other participants in the Lilly Fellows postdoctoral program at Valpo, who have also deeply influenced my thinking about the place of Christian theology in an undergraduate university and about the nature of church-related higher education. I truly appreciate my colleagues (past and present) in the Philosophy and Theology Department at Valparaiso University, who read earlier drafts of Fundamental Theology and offered their critical comments: Ossama Abdelgawwad, Jim Albers, Dick Baepler†, Mark Bartusch, Amanda Brobst-Renaud, Richard DeMaris, Nicholas Denysenko, Lisa Driver, Kevin Gary, George Heider, Susan Holman, Greg Jones, Ted Ludwig†, Gil Meilaender, Jim Moore, Fred Niedner, George Pati, Mel Piehl, Ron Rittgers, David Weber, and Stephanie Wong. My appreciation goes to other colleagues and friends who likewise read earlier drafts of chapters and offered their helpful suggestions for improvement: Michael Aune, Dorothy Bass, Stephen Chambers, Terry Cooper (a decades-long conversation partner, especially in matters of theology and religious psychology, and who happens also to be my brother-in-law), John Hannah, Tal Howard, Piotr Malysz, Mark Mattes, Jim Metcalf, Eric Moeller, Ross Moret, George Murphy, Ben Nickodemus, Mark Schwehn, Bill Shimkus, Art Simon, Robert Sylwester†, and Ellie Wegener. To all these friends and associates I tender my warmest thanks for their valuable assistance so freely given. I need to repeat the conventional word of caution and reservation about all of these individuals named above: None can be held responsible for any flaws in this book.

xvii

xviii

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to my editor at Bloomsbury, Anna Turton, who helped to make this second edition possible. During the time that I worked on this revision, I served Immanuel Lutheran Church, New Tracy, IN, as its pastoral assistant. I am grateful to the pastor of Immanuel, David Albertin, for his partnership in the gospel, and to this rural congregation that he and I serve, for their support and the joy in ministry that we share together. Finally, and most importantly, I wish once again to express my deepest gratitude and love to my wife Detra and our son Jacob for their patience and support.

Abbreviations

ABD AD ANF

BC BC

BDAG

BCSR

CCSL CD

CF

The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Anno Domini = “In the year of the Lord” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Rev. edn. 10 vols. Edited by A. Cleveland Coxe. 1885. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950–7 Before Christ The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (1580). Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. Translated by Charles Arand, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, William Russell, James Schaaf, Jane Strohl, and Timothy J. Wengert. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. References are to the page number(s) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edn, based on Walter Bauer’s Greichischdeutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th edn. Edited by Frederick William Danker. Translated by Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. 2nd edn. Edited by Robert A. Segal and Nickolas P. Roubekas. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2021 Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. 228 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953— Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Ger. orig: 1932–67). 4 vols in 13, plus index volume. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley, G. T. Thomson, T. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnston, J. L. M. Haire, J. C. Campbell, Iain Wilson, J. Strathearn, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, R. J. Ehrlich, Harold Knight, J. K. S. Reid, R. A. Stewart, and R. H. Fuller. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936–77. References will be to principal volume (I–IV), their parts, and either section (§) number(s) or page number(s) Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith (1830–1). 2 vols. Edited by Catherine L. Kelsey and Terrence N. Tice. Translated

xx

Abbreviations

by Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2016 Denzinger Henrich Denzinger, ed. Enchiridion symbolorum: definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum/Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals. 43rd edn. Edited by Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012. References are to the paragraph numbers that appear in the outer margins of this trilingual (Greek/Latin/English) edition EC The Encyclopedia of Christianity. 5 vols. Edited by Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David B. Barrett, Jan Milič Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998–2008 ELW Evangelical Lutheran Worship. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. ER Encyclopedia of Religion. 15 vols, 2nd edn. Edited by Lindsay Jones. New York: Thomson Gale, 2004 ESW Edmund Schlink Works. 5 vols. Edited by Matthew L. Becker. Translated by Matthew L. Becker, Robin Lutjohann, Hans G. Spalteholz, Mark A. Seifrid, Eleanor Wegener, and Ken Jones. Göttingen: Brill/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017— —Vol. 1 (2 bks in 1 vol.): The Coming Christ and Church Traditions and After the Council (2017). References are to the volume and the page number(s) —Vol. 2 (1 vol. in 2 bks): Ecumenical Dogmatics (2023). References are to the volume, the part (i.e., either book 1 or book 2), and the page number(s) —Vol. 3: The Doctrine of Baptism —Vol. 4: The Theology of the Lutheran Confessions —Vol. 5: Lectures, Essays, Addresses, and Selected Sermons ICR John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559). 4 bks in 2 vols. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Library of Christian Classics. Vols 20–1. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. References are to the book, chapter, and (where needed) section(s), followed (in brackets or parentheses) by the corresponding volume and page(s) in the English translation 1 LW Luther’s Works. American Edition, original series. 55 vols. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. St. Louis: Concordia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955–86 LW2 Luther’s Works. American Edition, new series. 28 vols. Edited by Christopher Boyd Brown (vol. numbers begin with vol. 56). St. Louis: Concordia, 2009—

Abbreviations

NIV

NPNF1 NPNF2

NT OCCT ODCC

OED OHST

OT REP RPP

RSV

ST

Tanner

WA WSA

The Holy Bible. New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by Permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. 14 vols. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–9. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series. 14 vols. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994 The New Testament The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Edited by Adrian Hastings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 4th edn. 2 vols. Edited by Andrew Louth, F. L. Cross, and E. Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022 The Compact Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edn. Edited by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991 The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Edited by John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 The Old Testament The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2000 Religion Past and Present. 13 vols. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. New York: Brill, 2009–13 The Holy Bible. The Revised Standard Version. Second Edition. Copyright © 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologiae (1265–74). Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947. References are to the part, the question, the article, and (where needed) the objection (obj.) or reply (ad.) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols. Edited by Norman P. Tanner. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1990. References are to the volume and page number(s) D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe [Weimar Ausgabe]. 65 vols in 127. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–1993 The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. 41 vols. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1990—

xxi

xxii

Introduction: Ways into Theology After a brief definition of the term theology (“thinking about God”), this chapter explores various informal ways that people enter into theological reflection, including common human questions, situations, and phenomena. It then points to academic theology as a more formal means of addressing these and other matters about God and religious faith.

God abides. God persists. God lasts. For many people, these statements ring true. Such individuals still believe in God. They hope in God. They trust God. Of course, other human beings take a different view. For them, God is silent, or absent, or even nonexistent. More than a few people think that all talk of God is nonsensical. Still others will point out that there are a multitude of gods, not merely one, just as there are many religions. What are your thoughts about God? No matter what view one takes, it is evident that the notion of God has not gone away in the modern era, that it is still pondered by billions of people today. That concept, however varied or uncertain it is, continues to creep into human consciousness and linger there, even despite efforts to stifle or dispel it. Even in the twenty-first century, many people in every region of the world keep believing in God. Many humans persist in thinking about God, speaking of God, seeking to love God, emoting toward God, striving to serve God.1 They want to love God, know God, see God, serve God. Why? What prompts them to undertake such actions? Why do a majority of humans believe, think, feel, and speak about God? Why do they try to love God or express 1. While recent Gallup polling data indicates that levels of regular church attendance in the United States have fallen significantly over the past two decades (down to 50 percent in 2020), and even more so as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, approximately eight in ten American adults, when asked if they believe in God, still answer in the affirmative. Of course, those polled do not get to define the term God. (Some self-described atheists in America do believe in “a higher power.” What they reject is “God as described in the Bible.”) For the relevant data, see the statistical reports on global religions by the Pew Research Center (https://www.pewr​esea​rch.org/); The World Christian Database, ed. Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo (Leiden: Brill, 2019); the General Social Survey (https://gssd​atae​xplo​rer.norc.org/); and the Cooperative Election Study (https://cces.gov.harv​ard.edu/). See also the 2022 Gallup poll that found a larger number of atheists in the US adult population than these other studies did: https://news.gal​lup.com/poll/393​737/bel​ief-god-dips-new-low.aspx (accessed November 9, 2022).

2

Fundamental Theology

other emotions toward God? What is the point of all that? Why theology? Are there really any good reasons for it? Moreover, what do people mean when they use this term God? Which God (or god)? Which understanding of God? There’s the rub. Do people even know what they are talking about when they use this word? Instead of referring to a single notion, perhaps we should recognize the multiplicity of ideas that are in play here, including ones held by those who are quite convinced that the supposed referent of the term God does not exist. These individuals, residing especially in Western Europe, Canada, and China, but also to an increasing extent in the United States, maintain that such theological pondering is illusory. A good many of them, too, may even wonder why theology persists, given their own assumptions about the universe and about what is real. But then, even those who reject the reality of God seem unable to free themselves from a kind of theology, since they cannot help but think at least a little about some notion of God, if only then to criticize and dismiss it. Theology takes many forms. Before proceeding any further, however, the term itself deserves attention. Strictly speaking, theology is “talking about God” or “thinking about God.”2 The Greek word theologia comes from two other words in that ancient language: theos, which means “God” or “god”; and logos, which means “word,” “statement,” “account,” “thought,” or “reason.”3 We may thus define theology simply as “speaking about God,” “reasoning about God,” or “giving an account of God.” Within the history of Western universities, some have also characterized it as “the science of God” or “the scholarly study of God.”4 Given the multiplicity of gods/ goddesses spoken of by people, past and present, it might be more accurate to use the rather ugly-looking and strange-sounding word theoilogy, “the study of gods,” since the plural of theos is theoi. Nevertheless, despite the plurality of deities spoken of by human beings, scholars continue to use the traditional term theology for this kind of speaking and thinking. But what is meant by this term God? While the deepest etymology of the word is disputed among researchers, two of its basic Aryan-language roots mean respectively “to invoke” and “to offer sacrifice.”5 Hence, the term God may originally have referred to “what is invoked” or to “what is worshiped by sacrifice.”6 In a most basic sense, then, a “god” is simply “an object of worship.” Two classic Christian definitions of God are connected to this idea, but differ from it in important ways. Martin Luther (1483–1546) thought that Gott, the German

2. OED, 2040. 3. Cf. BDAG, 450–2, 599. 4. ODCC, 2.1920. 5. OED, 686. 6. Ibid.

Introduction: Ways into Theology

word for God, derived from the German word for “good” (“Gut”). In his view, “a god” is “that to which we are to look for all good and in which we are to find refuge in all need.”7 Therefore, to have a god is nothing else than to trust and believe in that one with your whole heart. As I have often said, it is the trust and faith of the heart alone that make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true one. Conversely, where your trust is false and wrong, there you do not have the true God. For these two belong together, faith and God. Anything on which your heart relies and depends, I say, that is really your God.8

While Luther was wrong about the historical origins of the word Gott, his definition has influenced some later thinkers. The twentieth-century Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich (1886–1965) explicitly extended Luther’s definition to argue that “whatever concerns” a person “ultimately” becomes that individual’s “god.”9 Conversely, a person “can be concerned ultimately only about that which is god” for that person.10 According to a definition offered by Tillich, “gods” are “beings who transcend the realm of ordinary experience in power and meaning, with whom [humans] have relations which surpass ordinary relations in intensity and significance.”11 For both Luther and Tillich, then, a “god” need not necessarily be called by that name, or be the focus of religious worship or the object of religious sacrifice, since just about anything can become that from which one seeks every good thing, or about which one is ultimately concerned. People may place many things in that “God spot,” for example, their favorite sporting teams, the stock market or at least their financial portfolio, their nation, their family tree, their knowledge, a skill or hobby they have, an institution to which they belong. Luther and Tillich thus noted that humans tend to place their deepest trust or “ultimate concern” in things that cannot truly bear such trust and commitment, so they might be called “false gods” or idols. Humans seem to have a propensity to create such idols or false gods for themselves. Therefore, because theology is a matter of thinking critically and rightly about various concepts of God, of seeking to understand them, and evaluating them, a good deal of theology consists of ruling out false gods and false notions of God in order to arrive at something true. But why do people enter into such reflection in the first place? What leads individuals to think theologically?

7. Martin Luther, Large Catechism (Ten Commandments), BC, 386. 8. Ibid. 9. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951–63), 1.211. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid., 1.212.

3

4

Fundamental Theology

Perhaps the most common, informal way into theology is through one’s personal experience. Certain basic human experiences and questions lead one to reflect more deeply about one’s life as a whole and upon matters that have the effect of calling one’s life into question. The philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) referred to certain “boundary situations” or “limit situations” in human experience that give rise to profound and rather urgent questions about oneself, other people, the world, and about what he called “the Transcendent.”12 Jaspers called these situations “boundary situations” because they arise at the limits or boundaries of ordinary life, where the course of one’s life is disrupted or broken into by something inexplicable and inescapable. Some theologians think these disruptions of mundane, day-to-day life can indeed raise questions about God. First, there is an initial fundamental, general boundary situation that is given through the historicity, conditionality, and apparent unrepeatability of one’s existence in space and time. How am I to understand my existence as a whole? Why do I exist? What am I? Who am I? Is my existence entirely an accident, or is there a deeper purpose to it? Why do I exist here and now rather than in a different time and place? What is my future, my fate? How am I to use my freedom, my “restless faculty of choice,” given its limitations and restricted possibilities (e.g., being restricted by my origin, background, and nature, and by the volition of others)?13 Jaspers identified specific boundary situations—death, suffering, struggle (or conflict), and guilt—which can also lead in a theological direction. What is the meaning of my life in view of my death and transience? Try as we might, we cannot avoid the end to our life and the awareness of the constant threat of nonbeing. How can I say “yes” to my existence in view of my certain death and the deaths of others? How do I live after suffering the shattering death of a beloved family member or a close friend? Since late 2019 millions of people have died from Covid-19, and millions more have experienced the death of loved ones because of the disease. In view of so many deaths, how can I avoid nihilistic despair? From what do we derive the courage

12. Karl Jaspers, Philosophy, 3 vols, trans. E. B. Ashton (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969–71), 2.177–222. Jaspers, who taught philosophy at the universities of Heidelberg (1913–37, 1945–8) and Basel (1948–61), developed a kind of dialectical “philosophical faith.” On the one side of the dialectic, critical philosophy requires faith, which has to acknowledge a primordial transcendence that is prior to human existence and all human rationality. In this respect, Jaspers also criticized those who held that scientific knowledge exhausts the possibilities of real knowledge and that religious myths have nothing to teach us. On the other hand, faith requires critical philosophy to keep human beliefs about the transcendent from becoming absolutized. While atheistic philosophers criticized Jaspers for his openness to transcendence (which others might label “the divine”), Christian theologians found his notion of transcendence somewhat lacking in actual content. 13. Jaspers, Philosophy, 2.188.

Introduction: Ways into Theology

to keep on living? Consciousness of death, even as it changes for people over time, confronts them as a boundary or limit, and it tends to shape the character of their life. The sheer amount of profound suffering in our world, today and in the past, raises troubling questions about humans and God. For many, such suffering is sufficient to lead them to think theologically, either to reject the object of such thought as unreal (“How could an all-good and all-powerful deity allow for such overwhelming evil?”) or to struggle with how to relate that object to the sufferings they see (“How would I be able to call anything ‘evil’ if I did not already have in my mind the standard of a higher good or even ultimately the highest good?”). No matter how hard people strive to alleviate suffering, both their own and that of others, manifold forms of human misery continue and will persist. Despite scientific advances and technological innovation, as well as self-sacrificial human care and concrete political action, suffering has not come to an end. Maybe part of the problem is that so many seek to close their eyes to such suffering, or are indifferent to it, or perhaps even loathe those less fortunate than themselves. With what resources can I make a positive difference in this troubled world? How do I find meaning and purpose in adversity? How do I help those suffering to do so? If a neutral observer witnessed my actions, what would that person say about my own struggle for existence? Have I always acted justly? What about my financial decisions to help myself and others close to me? In some form or other, many people ask the biblical question, “For what will it profit individuals if they gain the whole world but lose their souls?” (Mk 8.38). Or what about the actions of my nation, especially in its coercive, forceful dealings with others for the sake of its own preservation? To what extent do I bear responsibility for those actions? For the ongoing environmental degradation of the planet? Have my personal achievements in some way or another led to the suffering of others? From another direction altogether, what about the suffering that is connected to love, as when one’s love is broken or betrayed, or when one suffers because of one’s love for another? Am I not aware of my need for love, of the risk I take to love another, of the risks that others have taken to love me? In so many ways we become aware of the inescapable fact of guilt. Again and again, we find ourselves caught in situations where no purely good choice seems possible, where we must abandon one unattractive choice for the sake of another. Can parents justly refuse to take part in public political action so that they can better care for their family in private? Does a country honor its treaty obligations even if that means beginning or expanding a war, or does it renege on those commitments when that seems a better path to peace? Whatever the choice in such situations, a sense of regret and even guilt will likely be the result. Some American fighter pilots or drone operators, who happen also to be evangelical Christians, are tormented by the thought that their actions have broken the Fifth Commandment (“You shall not kill”)—despite being told that their dutiful actions are part of a “just war”—while

5

6

Fundamental Theology

conscientious objectors are plagued by the thought that they have been unable to stop the progress of military actions.14 How can I possibly avoid harming people if I cannot remove myself from participating in the economic system of my country? But will not other harms take place even if I somehow succeeded in isolating myself from that same economic system? Is there any economic system in the world today that does not produce at least some negative consequences for some individuals and for the planet as a whole? Are individuals living “off the grid” fulfilling their social responsibilities toward others and toward the planet? Humans are often troubled in their conscience by complex moral or ethical dilemmas, the outcomes of which are never pure, right, and salutary. “What should I do in this situation?” “What would God have me do now?” “How am I to deal with the anxiety or guilt I am experiencing because of…?” These and related questions that arise from such boundary situations are not matters of indifference or instinct. Nor can one evade them, for evasion is itself a type of decision. These boundary situations and the questions arising from them tend to move the selfconscious human being into an existential situation of “angst” or anxiety about their solution. To the extent that a person addresses these issues in relation to God or gods or a higher power or the Transcendent, to use Jaspers’s term, that person is engaged in a kind of informal theology. Sometimes human beings find themselves in extraordinary situations that lead them in the direction of the transcendent or God and thus toward theology. For example, individuals are overwhelmed by an experience that causes them to wonder about “the meaning of it all.” That kind of experience can happen when an inexpressible joy and gratitude come upon a father after witnessing the birth of his first child. But it can also happen in other, more frightening ways. A person is not the same as he was before he learned that his four-year-old nephew died from nerve cancer in the arms of his mother, with the whisper of “Jesus” as the last utterance from his tiny lips. In that circumstance one finds oneself wrestling with the nature and purposes of God, with fears, known and unknown, with anger, grief, and a multitude of other feelings. Theology also occurs when one experiences the mystery of an unexpected medical outcome, as when my four-year-old son did not die or even suffer any ill effects from the 75 milliliters of blood that had pooled on his brain as a result of an accident that tore the artery under his cranium. Was this an answer to prayer? Other moments in life overwhelm one to the point that one cannot help but think of God or the unknown that follows death, as when one is diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. Just what is one to make of those many people who have written about their mystical or near-death experiences and have

14. Cf. E. L. Allen, The Self and Its Hazards: A Guide to the Thought of Karl Jaspers (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950), 35–6.

Introduction: Ways into Theology

drawn theological conclusions from them? Are they crazy, or have they tapped into something appropriately called the divine?15 Some questions that lead toward God or the transcendent are a bit more ordinary and mundane. As my son grew up, my wife and I continually wrestled with how best to teach him what we consider to be good, right, true, and worthy of pursuing in life. How would you respond if a child asked you where heaven is, the supposed place where people had told him his dead cousin now was, the one who died from cancer at the same age he was at the time? Or what do you say (or not say) when your fiveyear-old child blurts out in a fit of anger over the loss of his grandfather, cousin, and a beloved pet dog (all in the same year): “There is no God! There is no heaven! We die, and that’s it! I hate God!” How does one talk to anyone about terrible suffering, guilt, love, commitment, gratitude? Is the death of one’s own life and those of others the complete end, a “period,” or are they but a “comma,” after which there is another kind of life?16 Observations about the physical universe and the course of human events can also lead into an informal kind of theology. Why is there something at all and not nothing, and why is that “something” the way that it is? How does one account for the sense of awe and wonder that results from pondering the scope and grandeur of the universe, its apparent mathematical order, the (un)predictability of particle physics, and the beauty detected in telescopic photos of deep space and in microscopic pictures of cellular organisms? Is it not fascinating that people often express gratitude for their life and world when they are awestruck by such realities? To whom are they expressing such thankfulness? Conversely, how does one make sense of the seemingly senseless range of suffering and death in the world and its natural history? Following the incomprehensible murders of twenty young children and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, ten days before Christmas Eve in 2012, and in the wake of so many other senseless mass shootings in the United States since then, many have wondered, “where was God” during these horrific events?17 “How could a loving God allow such sickening death

15. For examples of such “near-death” experiences, see Bruce Greyson, After: A Doctor Explores What NearDeath Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond (New York: St. Martin’s, 2021). For a contrasting interpretation of such reports, see Hans Küng, Eternal Life: Life After Death as a Medical, Philosophical, and Theological Problem, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Doubleday, 1984). 16. It is commonly reported that the twentieth-century American comedienne Gracie Allen (1895–1964) left a note for her husband George Burns (1896–1996), which he was to read only after her death. After her funeral he read the note: “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.” 17. Almost ten years after the Sandy Hook massacre, nineteen children and two adults were killed on May 24, 2022, in a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 647 such shootings (where four or more people were injured or killed) in the United States in 2022. See https://www.gun​viol​ence​arch​ive.org/ (accessed May 23, 2023).

7

8

Fundamental Theology

and suffering to occur?” In the aftermath of terrible events, questions have also been raised by those who gathered in their churches or synagogues or mosques—there are nearly 400,000 such sacred spaces in the United States today—to call upon God in mournful prayer, to hear of God spoken in the context of unspeakable horror.18 In these circumstances one cannot help but wonder about the realities of sin and evil—and about those who persist in doing acts of kindness, based on their religious commitment, to help others in their time of grief and need. Events like these also lead to questions about God or the transcendent or “the spiritual.” Still other common human experiences may prompt theological reflection. A person has an encounter with a work of art or a piece of music that stirs thoughts about the meaning or absurdity of life or about matters of ultimate concern, to draw attention again to Tillich’s famous concept. Classic works of art reveal aspects of “the depth dimension” of human existence, and reflection on this revelation, insofar as it gives rise to thought about the Transcendent or God or the Supreme Being, can be described as “metaphysical speculation” or even a kind of theology.19 Other people read a novel or a poem, such as the Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), which takes them through a kind of conversion process that leads them to see themselves differently in light of its theological themes. Still another person listens to a symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) or engages the sublime musical compositions of J. S. Bach (1685–1750), such as his St. John Passion, the St. Matthew Passion, or the B-Minor Mass, and is led to contemplate the beautiful, mathematical order of music, and to wonder about its mystical, theological dimensions. Most people, even today, engage theological questions within the context of a religion or the vestiges of a religious tradition. Religion, as a term and concept, is notoriously difficult to define, despite the fact that many people think they know it when they see it.20 Some scholars, such as the British anthropologist E. B. Tylor (1832–1917), have defined religion mainly in terms of “belief.” For Tylor religion entails “belief in spiritual beings.”21 Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) argued that religion is that which gives expression to an experience of “the holy,” the mysterious, horrifying, yet fascinating “wholly other,” the “sublime,” the “numinous.”22 Tillich defined religion as “the state of being grasped 18. For examples of mostly mainline American Christian preaching about God in times of national tragedy, see Melissa M. Matthes, When Sorrow Comes: The Power of Sermons from Pearl Harbor to Black Lives Matter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021). 19. Cf. Jaspers, Philosophy, 1.326–35. 20. For a helpful overview of possible answers to the question “What is religion?,” see James C. Livingston, Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion, 6th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009), 3–14. See also Daniel Pals, Ten Theories of Religion, 4th edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). 21. E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom (1871), 2 vols, 4th edn, rev. (London: John Murray, 1903), 1.424. 22. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational, trans. John W. Harvey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923).

Introduction: Ways into Theology

by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all others concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of life.”23 Each of these definitions seems to focus on the “belief ” of the individual. But what then about ritual practices, concrete ethical behaviors, and the communal aspect of religion? Moreover, what about those religions that do not speak of belief in “spiritual beings,” or that have no concept of God or the divine, such as Confucianism and some forms of Buddhism? Just what did Tillich mean by “ultimate concern?” That concept does seem rather broad and amorphous. Moreover, could not a person have more than one ultimate concern? What about those religions that believe in many gods, such as Hinduism? Other scholars have defined religion not so much in terms of “belief” but as a matter of moral behavior. For example, Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) reframed Christianity and other religions entirely within a rational-moral framework that focuses on human ethical behavior.24 “Religion,” he said, “is the recognition of all our duties as divine commands.”25 Similarly, Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) stressed that religion “is what an individual does with his solitariness.”26 Like Kant’s definition, Whitehead’s definition is too focused on the individual and what the individual does. Both definitions leave out important aspects of religion, for example, specific beliefs, rituals, communal traditions, and the “feeling” aspect of religious experience, which Otto stressed.27 Religion is more than a matter of beliefs, then, just as it is more than merely engaging in individualistic ethical-moral behavior. More helpful is the definition of religion put forth by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). Dissatisfied with the conventional notion that religion is belief in supernatural beings, he defined it as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden.”28 This definition pulls together “belief ” and “behaviors” and

23. Paul Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter with World Religions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 4. 24. Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1794), trans. Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960). 25. Ibid., 142. 26. Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Macmillan, 1926), 16 (emphasis added). 27. Otto was influenced by Luther’s theology, in addition to the experiential and psychological approaches to religion by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834; religion as grounded in “the feeling of absolute dependence”) and William James (1842–1910; religion as expressed through psychological phenomena). See Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799), trans. Richard Crouter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); and William James, Varieties of Religious Experience (1901–2) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982). 28. Émile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Joseph Ward Swain (New York: Macmillan, 1915), 47. Cf. Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1957).

9

10

Fundamental Theology

“the sacred” in a way that points to the depth of what religion is, but it also provides more specificity with respect to the object of religion. There is a difference between a specific belief in “supernatural beings,” on the one hand, and the wide array of beliefs and practices that are oriented toward “the sacred,” on the other hand. Similarly, the American sociologist John Yinger (1916–2011) understood a religion to be “a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.”29 Helpful here is the attention given to beliefs, practices, and communities of people. Yet this definition is not without its own problems. At face value it suggests that just about any human belief and practice could fit under the category of “religion.” This weakness is similar to the limitations of Tillich’s notion of “ultimate concern.” (It is worth pondering that Yinger’s definition includes Tillich’s adjective ultimate.) Yet another definition of religion, which gained wide acceptance among scholars of religious studies in the last half century, was put forth by the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006). Like Yinger’s definition, it too focuses on the functional aspect of religion, but it is more specific with regard to the character of the objects of religious experience: Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in [people] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.30

As useful as Geertz’s definition may be, it too has serious weaknesses. For one, Geertz makes “religion” a matter of interior reflection on symbols, moods, motivations, and conceptions—a definition that works fairly well for Protestant Christianity. But his definition marginalizes aspects of other forms of Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy) and other world religions that are oriented less toward the belief of an individual and more toward communal practices.31 It is precisely the communal nature of such religions that allows for the transmission of a particular system of symbols and helps to establish the mood and motivations and worldview of individuals within the religious community. That communal aspect reflects one

29. John Milton Yinger, Ethnicity: Source of Strength? Source of Conflict? (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 256. Cf. James Livingston’s definition of religion: “Religion is that system of activities and beliefs directed toward and in response to that which is perceived to be of sacred value and transforming power” (Livingston, Anatomy of the Sacred, 8). 30. Clifford Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System,” in Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach, 4th edn, eds. William A. Lessa and Evon Z. Vogt (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 79–80. 31. Cf. the insightful critique of Geertz’s definition of religion by the Islamist scholar Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1993), 27–54.

Introduction: Ways into Theology

possible etymology of the term religion, namely, deriving it from the Latin word religare, which means “to bind together” or “to bring together” or “to reconnect.”32 That linkage would help to underscore the social and communal character of religion, which provides the content and context for reflection on those symbols, moods, motivations, behaviors, and overall worldview. It may also help to explain why many people in Western cultures will say they are “spiritual” but not necessarily “religious.” They may believe in God or a higher power or the spiritual, but they are not regular participants in any religious community, its rituals, customs, practices, and ethos. More recently, Christian Smith (b. 1960) has defined religion as: A complex of culturally prescribed practices, based on premises about the existence and nature of superhuman powers, whether personal or impersonal, which seek to help practitioners gain access to and communicate or align themselves with these powers, in hope of realizing human goods and avoiding things bad.33

Smith argues that human beings are naturally religious and predisposed toward religious practices, although he qualifies this assertion by acknowledging that not all humans are “highly religious.” “Religion” arises precisely where human capabilities rub against serious human limitations and incapacities. While Smith’s lengthy definition has the benefit of taking complicated, interrelated, essential elements of religion seriously, some scholars have noted that it seems to avoid the origin and early history of so-called primitive and prehistoric religions. In addition, it does not really account for the historical dynamics and processes of religious change. Similar to other definitions, it seems to concentrate on the behaviors and premises (“beliefs”) of individual persons within a religion rather than on the religions themselves as historically conditioned communal collectives.34 Still, this definition is among the best currently available, given its complexity and the detailed examples and careful argumentation that support it. Certainly, we could identify other examples of “thinking about ‘religion’ ”—a phrase that also works, in part, as a definition for the term theology, insofar as such thinking involves presuppositions about the origin of all religions. (We will return to the general issue of religion per se in Chapter 6, given that some modern theories of religion presuppose an atheistic, naturalistic worldview.) For now, may we agree that most religions typically include specific language(s), symbols, myths/stories, rituals, patterns of behavior, claims to truth, and communal ways of transmitting all of these over the course of time? 32. OED, 1552. 33. Christian Smith, Religion: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It Matters (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), 22. 34. Cf. the critical review of Smith’s book by Jose Casanova in the Journal of Church and State 61 (Winter 2019): 126–8.

11

12

Fundamental Theology

A good many of these religions (but not all) refer to God or gods or some higher power(s) or some other transcendent reality (Atman, nirvana, etc.). To the extent that people think and speak about these matters in that context, they are engaged in theology, that is, thinking or speaking about God, Gott, or Allah or whatever other name(s) is/are appropriate. The person so engaged in such thinking may even be described as a theologian, that is, as “one who speaks about God,” at least in the broadest sense of the term. A theist, then, is one who believes in God or a god or a set of gods. An atheist, on the other hand, is one who rejects or denies the reality of any and all gods. Certainly, religious or spiritual practices also lead in the direction of theology. “Why is this night different from all others?” asks the youngest child at the Jewish Passover meal. “Why do we wash ourselves and take off our shoes before entering our mosque?” asks a young Muslim boy. Why does the university teacher of Hinduism tell her undergraduate students that this Hindu dance is the essence of Hinduism? “Why are the Jehovah’s Witnesses opposed to blood transfusions?” asks the nurse at the hospital. “How will we raise our children?” wonder the Baptist student and his Roman Catholic fiancé: “Will we baptize the children or not?” Is same-sex behavior intrinsically sinful, against the eternal will of God, even within lifelong, faithful, and loving partnerships? Do the names of Hindu deities refer to individual gods and goddesses, or are they merely names for “the unnamable One” behind and inclusive of all the sacred names? (Of course, cynics and others can also raise theological questions, for example, “If God is all-powerful, can God create a rock so large that God could not lift it?” One task of critical theology is identifying foolish or wrong questions about God.) Prayer may be one of the most basic ways people in effect “do” theology, since that practice makes assumptions about the One(s) so addressed. The way one prays gives clues about what one believes, and what one prays gives clues about what one believes. Within Christianity an ancient Latin phrase even highlights this connection: Lex orandi, lex credendi (literally “the law of praying [is] the law of believing”). How you pray, to whom you pray, what you pray for—all these say a lot about what you believe regarding the nature of prayer, the nature of worship, the One(s) to whom you pray, and what you believe about the goal of such prayer. The same could be said about spiritual meditation and other spiritual practices that also make assumptions about oneself in relation to other realities, including the reality of the transcendent or the spiritual. By now, one can probably detect a certain fuzziness about what theology actually studies since there are so many names for that object or set of objects. Even this brief discussion has highlighted some of the common descriptors: God, gods/goddesses, the Transcendent, transcendent reality, higher power(s), Being, the divine, the sacred, the holy, the spiritual, matters of ultimate concern, the depth dimension of human existence, the religions, religious experience, right behavior. Theology is about all of these—and more.

Introduction: Ways into Theology

One noted scholar of world religions has said that “although we have no way of knowing the mental and spiritual outlook of the earliest humans, we may at least assume that religious ideas and practices have been part of humankind’s experience for as long as humans have had thinking, reflecting, and imagining capabilities.”35 Religious practices have been a part of human existence since the beginnings of human history.36 To the extent that every religious tradition contains ordered reflection on its received stories (myths), rituals, behaviors, customs, and beliefs, that tradition is marked by theology, which many scholars of religion describe as thinking about “the sacred, the ground of all, the ultimate reality.”37 In this sense, the term theology may also be used loosely to describe reflection on “the holy,” “the eternal,” “the One,” “nirvana,” or whatever other name or term is used to denote ultimate reality, even when such reflection occurs within nontheistic traditions or within a tradition that does not use the word God. What should be clear by now is the fact that theology, broadly speaking, is always a distinct or particular kind of thinking and speaking of God or the Transcendent, whether that speaking is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or some other way. Within the three great Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), which trace their respective heritages back to the single figure of Abraham, theology is undertaken within a context of monotheism, that is, a belief in one God. Indeed, in each of these religions, authentic theology or knowledge of God is given by God through divine revelation that makes knowledge of God possible for human beings. God’s own self-revelation or God’s own addressing of human beings leads to distinct ways of thinking about God and of formulating certain perennial problems and questions. Entry into these theological issues usually begins with careful study of the Scriptures in the tradition and how they have been understood over time. For example, what do the Jewish and Christian Scriptures indicate about the nature of God’s being and God’s relation to the world? How are these understandings similar to or different from a Muslim understanding that develops from a close reading of the Qur’an? Is God involved in the way that the Jew or Muslim thinks or as the Christian thinks, or in some other way? Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God (but in differing ways)? Or does each of these groups worship a different God?38 35. Theodore M. Ludwig, The Sacred Paths: Understanding the Religions of the World, 4th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005), 27. 36. See Colin Renfrew and Iain Morley, eds., Becoming Human (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Robert Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011). 37. Ludwig, The Sacred Paths, 13 (emphasis in original). 38. See especially Miroslav Volf, ed., Do We Worship the Same God: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). Volf himself provides a persuasive argument that the object of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic worship is the same, despite differing beliefs about this one God among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. See also Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (New York: HarperOne, 2011).

13

14

Fundamental Theology

Sometimes people speak of God only to question that transcendent reality altogether or at least to criticize those who appeal to it for support of their beliefs and actions. In view of the incomprehensible deaths of millions in the genocides from just the past century alone, can one go on believing in a good and merciful God, or must one give up that belief as faulty, wishful thinking? One can understand why the Jewish boy, who survived the Holocaust because his mother sent him to America to escape Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s, later lost his faith when he learned after the Second World War that his mother, and all the rest of his family who could not leave, had died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The towering atheistic, nineteenth-century “anti-theologians,” Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), Karl Marx (1818–83), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), also criticized and rejected the object of religious conviction in favor of “this-worldliness” and secular, transformative action. Many contemporary atheists echo their concerns. Still, one notes that the reflections on religion and God by those who are opposed to these concepts involve these very individuals, too, willy-nilly, in a form of theological discourse, albeit of a strictly negative kind. Even the atheist, the one who rejects altogether the reality of God or gods/goddesses or the transcendent, cannot help but also be a theologian of sorts. “God’s unforgettableness means that He is present even in rejection,” argued Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski (1927–2009).39 The same is true of those who make judgments about the behaviors of religious people that they find deeply troubling. How many engaged in theological reflection after witnessing the horrific events of September 11, 2001—events that clearly were at least partly motivated by religious conviction?40 Why do religious people act in ways that

39. Leszek Kolakowski, “Concern about God in an Apparently Godless Age,” in My Correct Views on Everything, ed. Zbigniew Janowski (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2005), 183. Many Western people use masculine pronouns to refer to God. Such usage reflects the patriarchal sociology and anthropology of ancient cultures. For example, the Greek word for God (theos) is masculine. The Jewish and Christian Scriptures use male language about God, although on occasion they also use female imagery. At times masculine language for God will be used in this book, often in direct quotations and especially when referring to the trinitarian name that the risen Christ (Mt. 28.19-20) gave his followers to use when baptizing and instructing people. Jesus called himself God’s “Son” and he taught his followers to pray to God as “our Father.” These designations must be respected in light of the authority given to Jesus by the One whom Jesus called “my Father.” It is important to note, too, however, that Jesus also alluded to 4 Esdras 1.30, where God is compared to a mother hen. Jesus lamented how he had tried to gather the children of Jerusalem like a hen with her brood (Lk. 13.34). While we must not try to make Jesus into someone other than he presented himself to be, it is important to note that mainstream Jewish and Christian theologians affirm that the divine nature is not to be understood as literally being male (or female, for that matter). When encountered, masculine pronouns for God must be interpreted carefully and understood analogically. 40. See especially Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). Lincoln is also critical of Geertz and argues that a proper definition of “religion” must be attentive to four domains: (1) a discourse that claims transcendent authority, (2) a set of practices that

Introduction: Ways into Theology

are completely contrary to the most deeply stated convictions of their religion? Can one properly understand the medieval Crusades or the post-Reformation “wars of religion” without some attention to the theological aspects of these conflicts? The Catholic sex-abuse crisis that has deeply damaged the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church (and of Christianity more broadly) has also led to theological reflection and criticism, and to further thinking about the huge disconnection between the teachings of that church body and the actual behaviors of its leaders. During the week that this paragraph was written a suicide truck bomber killed eighty-five people in Mogadishu, Somalia, apparently partly for religious reasons. There have been so many such attacks in the past three decades that one hardly pauses to consider the consequences of each one anymore, yet thinking about the “God-dimension” of these actions involves one in theology, too, even if one rejects the reality of that dimension and/or criticizes the actions and the beliefs of those who appeal to it as justification for their violent, extremist behavior. Consider, too, how Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, begun in 2022, has been strongly supported by leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church. Public discourse about this war, which has included talk about the threat of the use of nuclear weapons, has also included properly religious and theological reflection beyond merely the Christian biblical reference to “Armageddon” (Rev. 16.16). (Of course, religious violence is not merely a Western phenomenon, as the violent actions of Hindu nationalists in India and Buddhists in Myanmar demonstrate.) Given how religion and “thinking about God” impact major social and political conflicts around the globe, is it any wonder that some people would just as soon avoid discussing topics of religion and theology altogether? Not only do such topics often make people awkward and even uncomfortable, but they can lead to fierce arguments and, sadly, even to violence—just as can happen with any deeply held conviction about topics some parents teach their children to avoid discussing in public. How does one navigate through the conflicts that can arise in families and religious groups over how best to put one’s religious (or nonreligious) convictions into practice in public life? How does one articulate a convincing theological critique of those American evangelical Christians whose actions and political voting have directly contributed to the rise of white Christian nationalism in the United States?41

renders religious discourse “operational,” (3) a community that is constructed by means of such discourse and practices, and (4) an institution that regulates such discourse, practices, and community. 41. For helpful resources to begin thinking about such a critique, see Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (New York: Liveright, 2021); Paul D. Miller, The Religion of American Greatness: What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism (Westmont, IL: InterVarsity, 2022); and Pamela Cooper-White, The Psychology of Christian Nationalism: Why People Are Drawn In, and How to Talk across the Divide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2022).

15

16

Fundamental Theology

Sadly, even atheistic ideology (anti-theology) has also led to oppression, persecution, and violence. Witness what has happened to religious people in the Communist Soviet Union, in Pol-Pot’s Communist Cambodia, and in Mao Zedong’s Communist China. Not only do people fight, suffer, and sacrifice because of their religious convictions, some also fight, suffer, and sacrifice on behalf of anti-religious (or nonreligious) convictions. Such beliefs and values are perhaps the deepest feelings and ideas one can have about oneself and one’s world, for they involve one’s entire view of reality and how that view shapes individual and communal belief and action in the world. One should not be surprised that such convictions, religious and otherwise, can become disastrously destructive. People can think about God or speak of God in poor ways, negative and destructive ways. To return to Luther’s definition of God, people can put their faith or trust in false gods. They can count on or even stake their very lives on that which is not true or that which fails them. The premise of their theology is an illusion, or at least a wrong understanding. Lest one conclude, however, that the best solution going forward is not to have any convictions at all, given how strongly held religious and antireligious principles can wreak such havoc upon society when they “go public,” consider what our world would be like today if people of deep conviction had not been concerned about slavery, women’s rights, child labor, civil rights, human rights, world peace, and other issues of social justice. People who study political movements, or who study the people who work for peace or who care for the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak, will also have to take note of the religious and theological commitments of these movements and individuals. Several examples are worth highlighting. Can one fully understand and appreciate the civil rights movement without attention to the theology of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–68) and other civil rights leaders? Would the Peace Corps have become what it is were it not for the Christian convictions of its founding director, R. Sargent Shriver (1915–2011), who attended Mass daily before heading off to his work in Washington, DC? How many social reformers have acted on the basis of deeply held religious beliefs, as did Senator George McGovern (1922–2012), a Methodist, when he addressed the political issues of poverty and hunger, or many religious people are doing in the Black Lives Matter movement, or as some evangelical Christians are doing today in view of the threatening climate crisis? One can point, for example, to the work of Lennox Yearwood Jr. (b. 1969), a Christian pastor and activist who is working to end the use of fossil fuels. Who else comes to mind when you think of the connection between religious conviction and public action? I immediately think of three individuals who have been inspiring to me: Jimmy Carter (b. 1924), the thirty-ninth president of the United States, who has regularly drawn attention to the relationship between his Baptist-Christian

Introduction: Ways into Theology

faith and his public service42; Fred Rogers (1928–2003), a Presbyterian minister whose religious values seeped through nearly every episode of his television show, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood (1968–2001)43; and Arthur Simon (b. 1930), a Lutheran pastor who was the principal founder of the anti-hunger organization Bread for the World.44 Even the person who is strongly opposed to organized religion and distrustful of religious institutions has to acknowledge that such people of strong religious faith have done and continue to do much public good because of their organized, communal faith, often in places where no one else will go and for people about whom many could not care less. Religious people care for the homeless, for refugees, and for those in war-torn countries, and they serve in places where drought, fire, floods, earthquakes, and storms have put people in crisis.45 To understand these public actions more fully invites one to examine and comprehend the theological understandings and motivations of those who do them. Is there not an abiding need for good theology? Even in the face of obvious evil and suffering, people of religious conviction confess their sins and failures, they pray and work for a better world, and they have a sober hope in the ultimate goodness of God over against all evils. For example, despite what happened to the Jews under the regime of Hitler, many have continued to practice Judaism as a moral and theological necessity over against the evils perpetuated by the Nazis. German-born rabbi Emil Fackenheim (1916–2003), himself a Holocaust survivor who lost family members in the death camps, has argued: [Jews have the responsibility] to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish, … to remember in our very guts and bones the martyrs of the Holocaust, lest their memory perish, … [to be forbidden] to deny or despair of God, however much we may have to contend with him or with belief in him, lest Judaism perish, … [to be forbidden] to despair of the world as the place which is to become the kingdom of God, lest we help make it a meaningless place in which God is dead or irrelevant and everything is permitted. To abandon any of these imperatives, in response to Hitler’s victory at Auschwitz, would be to hand him yet other, posthumous victories.46

42. See especially Jimmy Carter, Faith: A Journey for All (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018). Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and a cofounder (with his wife Rosalynn) of the Carter Center, he has been active in a number of public service areas since his presidency. 43. See the excellent 2018 documentary on his life, Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, directed by Morgan Neville. 44. Arthur Simon, The Rising of Bread for the World: An Outcry of Citizens against Hunger (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2009). 45. See, for example, the mission and work of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (https://www.lirs. org/) and Lutheran World Relief (https://lwr.org/). 46. Emil Fackenheim, The Jewish Return into History: Reflections in the Age of Auschwitz and a New Jerusalem (New York: Schocken Books, 1978), 23–4. Fackenheim, a Reform rabbi, was born in 1916 and died in 2003.

17

18

Fundamental Theology

Theology done in such circumstances is not a hobby but a life-and-death struggle, a moral and religious necessity in the face of terrible events and disturbing mysteries. Other Jewish thinkers are critical of this kind of “negative” motivation for remaining Jewish. They insist that one should be Jewish for the sake of Judaism alone, not as a protest against Hitler and the Holocaust. But that, too, is just another way of entering into theology, when one disagrees with a theological understanding set forth by another. (It should be noted that many Jews refrain from using the term theology, largely because of its Greek and Christian etymology, and yet they, too, interpret their practices, laws, and beliefs and seek to understand them.)47 Finally, academic theology can itself be a significant entry point into the topic of theology. This may be the most formal manner by which people think about God, the divine, spiritual beliefs, and religious practices. Indeed, for many university students, this entry might provide them with their first opportunity to undertake a sustained effort at thinking critically and systematically about their own beliefs and commitments and those of others. What is more, they can do so in ways that are related to the history of theological reflection and to knowledge discovered and transmitted in the other university disciplines. Such an entry can dispel one of Ernest Boyer’s fears about undergraduate education in America: “At a time in life when values should be shaped and personal priorities sharply probed, what a tragedy it would be if the most deeply felt issues, the most haunting questions, the most creative moments were pushed to the fringes of our institutional life.”48 Thankfully, many university students today do want to explore “the big questions” of life, of meaning, purpose, and faith.49 These have to do with those intensely personal questions: “Who am I?” “What do I believe about myself and the world around me?” “What am I to do with my life?”50 Yet these types of questions also lead toward broader,

47. Steven Kepnes notes that many people, both within and without Judaism, question the assertion that Judaism “contains a long and sustained tradition of Jewish theology.” These individuals stress that the focus within Judaism is on Jewish law, not theology, and that the Jewish covenant with God is built more on behaviors than beliefs; Steven Kepnes, The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Theology, ed. Steven Kepnes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 3–4. Nevertheless, Kepnes goes on to write, “Even if we take the distinction of law and theology seriously, the reader will see that for Jews there is an intrinsic connection between law and theology, and many Jewish theologians seek to make that connection explicit” (Kepnes, The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Theology, 4). Cf. the excellent essay in the same volume by David Novak, “What Is Jewish Theology,” The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Theology, 20–38. 48. Ernest Boyer, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 283–4. Boyer (1928–95) was an American educational philosopher. 49. See especially Sharon Daloz Parks, Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in Their Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000). 50. See, for example, David Brooks’s moving description of his conversion to Christianity in the context of his “quest for a moral life,” The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life (New York: Random House, 2019).

Introduction: Ways into Theology

more public issues, such as peace among peoples, justice, the common good, global climate change, the mass extinction of animals, the future of the planet and of human beings on it. These questions are not inherently secular; they are often wrapped up in religious convictions and commitments. For example, what can I as a religious person do to help preserve, as much as is still possible, the wonderful diversity of life on earth? Within a North American context, students of theology might be asked to think critically about the theological assumptions that some American citizens make about their country being exceptional in the eyes of God. Since nearly two-thirds of all Americans today fully or mostly agree with the questionable assertion that God has granted America a special role in human history, one might wonder what the basis is for this commonly held belief in American “exceptionalism.” What role does this belief about “God and America” play in Americans’ perceptions of US foreign policy, and how does this theological assumption affect other people and countries in the world? One Christian theologian has asked, “If U.S. foreign and domestic policy is in fact based on theological beliefs regarding God, the U.S., the world, and human history, then it is vital that such beliefs be brought out fully into the open and articulated clearly so that they can be discussed and analyzed. If we theologians do not do this, who will?”51 How can one avoid theological issues and questions when analyzing why so many conservative “evangelical Christians” in America have supported the Republican Party, while many liberal Protestants tend to align with the progressive wing in the Democratic Party? Even a nominally Christian university student can feel compelled to study academic Christian theology when she becomes embarrassed that a non-Christian student knows more about her Christian tradition than she does. As she goes deeper into the Christian tradition, she wonders why women have not been allowed to serve as priests or pastors in the major church groups (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, conservative Protestant) and why Christians have oppressed women and others over the centuries. She also begins to question certain beliefs and practices that seem in her judgment to contribute to major global problems of overpopulation and environmental degradation. Thus, she begins to think theologically.

Cf. Arthur C. Brooks’s reflections on “The Satisfaction Trap,” The Atlantic (March 2022): 22–30. The latter makes a compelling case that no matter what humans dream for themselves, no matter what they accomplish, see, acquire, or do, no matter how fast they run on the proverbial “hedonic treadmill,” no matter how hard they try, satisfaction (“lasting joy,” “enduring happiness”) slips from their grasp. According to A. C. Brooks, the challenge is to manage our “wants,” but he also points toward the relative good of all earthly things, our misguided attachment to them, and of the need to look for a deeper, more meaningful kind of happiness, which may involve theological pursuits. He freely acknowledges the importance of his Roman Catholic faith, his family, his friendships, and the work he does that is meaningful, which also serves others. 51. David A. Brondos, “On the Vital Role of Theology Today,” Dialog 50 (Fall 2011): 222.

19

20

Fundamental Theology

Theology pops up in other university contexts, too, often within a broader argument for the importance of the humanities, philosophy, and the arts in higher education. Since the history of human culture contains theological symbols and ideas, attention to academic theology can help one to uncover the meaning(s) these symbols and ideas have had and might continue to have. The history of Western art and literature, for example, cannot be appreciated without some theological understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Certainly theology will be an aspect of any investigation into the world’s religions, the study of which ought to be “a necessary part of any quality program of higher learning.”52 While the scholarly analysis of any given religion should strive for objective description and analysis, questions about normative judgments and theological criticism do frequently arise, especially when scholars ask whether or not one is justified in making at least some critical judgments about specific beliefs and practices within the religions, for example, when one is convinced such beliefs and practices are unjust or harmful to others. There might very well be good reasons for being critical of some beliefs, practices, and theological understandings. One thinks, in particular, of certain exclusivist beliefs and practices in some of the world’s religions that have fomented nationalism, fanaticism, racism, sexism, conflict, and violence. As was noted earlier, the pressing and significant global problems that are compounded, if not actually caused by false theological understandings and practices, lead many to conclude that the study of the religions is incomplete without at least some attention to rigorous theological inquiry. The faith dimension of many of the most troubling of problems in the contemporary world cannot be avoided. Many students within religious studies also often ask about normative, theological issues: Are all religions true? Are all false? Are some more true than others? If all religions cannot be equally true in every respect, do all contain truthful elements? Do the religions of the world have anything good in common with each other? If so, what is this? Conversely, can one identify when a given theological understanding is false or harmful or worse than another? Perhaps more troubling, do all religions, as human institutions, contain falsehoods? Are religions generally a force for evil in the world or a force for good? How does one articulate a “norm” for discerning a theological truth or at least identifying a theological harm, if not a theological falsity? Recent textbooks on religious studies indicate an abiding interest in these questions, even if 52. Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, No Longer Invisible: Religion in University Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 153. The Jacobsens organize the second part of their book around six key questions that lead in the direction of theological reflection: What should an educated person know about the world’s religions? What are appropriate ways to interact with those of other faiths? What assumptions and rationalities—secular or religious—shape the way we think? What values and practices—religious or secular—shape civic engagement? In what ways are personal convictions related to the teaching and learning process? How might colleges and universities point students toward lives of meaning and purpose?

Introduction: Ways into Theology

the questions themselves are problematic for a discipline whose many practitioners eschew such normative issues in favor of the ideal of scholarly neutrality and careful, objective description. Perhaps just as problematic are questions about why religious fundamentalisms and nationalisms are flourishing in the world today, often seemingly in response to perceived threats from secularizing forces. These questions, too, call for a scholarly sensitivity to the theological content of these religious movements and the shared convictions of those within them. Investigations in the natural and human sciences also raise theological questions about human beings, their self-understandings, and their relation to the cosmos in which they live, as when a biologist confidently makes the statement that the entire universe is meaningless or that evolution in nature is entirely a random process. Christian psychologist Don Browning (1934–2010) and others have shown that humanist psychologists have sometimes made assertions that imply a kind of theological understanding, as when prominent psychologist Carl Rogers (1902–87) “implicitly assumed that human beings are acceptable not simply before a therapist, or even a community of acceptance, but instead, acceptable before the very source of life.”53 Is not this assumption about “the acceptance” of the client a quasi-theological assumption? Of late, some neuroscientists have developed empirical models for investigating the relation between human brain activity and religious experience and behavior. What are the theological implications of these recent scientific investigations into the neuropsychology of spirituality? Other university scholars are involved in interdisciplinary studies on a multitude of topics relating to theology: the connection between religious practices and health, the role of religious traditions in the articulation of virtue and ethical principles, the supposed evolution of religion in the context of human evolution, and so on. Unfortunately, however, many criticize academic theology as too complex, too speculative, too impractical, and too esoteric. It is viewed as a “sectarian intruder” within a fully secular institution. A large number of Americans understand religion primarily as a set of behaviors rather than a set of overarching beliefs, and thus they tend to be skeptical about theological reflection altogether. These attitudes continue to be expressed in the United States, where experience and activity are frequently valued more highly than academic theology.54 This skepticism about academic theology has been prevalent in America since at least the eighteenth century, when people like Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) and Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) expressed significant criticism of some religions and their attendant theologies, which they understood to be superstition and coercive “priestcraft.” Yet even these specific critics engaged in theological reflection. Jefferson’s library contains dozens of books

53. Terry Cooper, Don Browning and Psychology (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2011), 7. 54. Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).

21

22

Fundamental Theology

on the New Testament and Christian theology, and he spent many evenings trying to discern what the historical Jesus actually said and did. He also was the principal author of a document that asserts that “all men … are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”55 Why this appeal to “the creator?” Perhaps even Jefferson knew that most human actions have underlying assumptions, motivations, and goals that are theoretical, religious, and even perhaps theological, or at least metaphysical and ethical, in nature. Engaging in practical action without giving any attention to the thought that accompanies that action will likely be viewed by many as rather impoverishing for the doer, even as attending to thinking alone apart from practical action will be deemed shortsighted. It needs to be noted, too, that while some theologians uncritically defend and protect the teachings of their particular religious community, academic theologians often criticize traditional understandings and practices within their own religious communities and look for fruitful dialogue with scholars across the university. In this latter context they might also defend some religious traditions that have been wrongly understood or unfairly rejected. To be sure, poor academic theology—the kind that avoids serious, critical, and self-critical reflection, that allows bias and prejudice to interfere with a careful examination of all relevant data, that belittles opposing arguments, and that does not seek to instill basic academic virtues—is indeed contrary to the best and highest ideals of a university community. There is no room in a university classroom for using the lecture podium as a pulpit. But that same concern arises regarding any poorly taught university course in a host of other human-focused academic areas. Sociology, political science, economics, and courses on race and gender are also liable to bias and prejudice. Perhaps because academic theologians often raise difficult, complicated questions about received religious traditions, beliefs, and practices, many who live within those traditions are uncomfortable with scholarly theology. They would rather live with a simple faith that relies on unexamined or uncritical readings of sacred writings or on an appeal to institutional religious authority. Still others might be uncomfortable because the examination of religious traditions might call their faith, whether secular or religious, into question. They might even fear that critical inquiry into theology might lead them to revise or even reject their previously held convictions and beliefs. The loss of one’s god(s) or the loss of a previously believed certainty, whether of the 55. “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled” (July 4, 1776), in Thomas Jefferson, Writings, ed. Merrill D. Peterson (New York: The Library of America, 1984), 19. It is important to underscore that Jefferson and most of the founders were not Christian believers but Deists. They believed that God created the universe and established the laws of nature, and that God’s plan for the universe included the formation of the United States of America, but they were suspicious of organized religion as such, which they saw as a potentially harmful intrusion into public life. For such Deists, religion is based in “nature” and reason, not in revelation. See William L. Rowe, “Deism,” REP, 198.

Introduction: Ways into Theology

atheistic or theistic variety, can be painful. But is an unexamined faith worth holding? Is such a faith legitimate, if it cannot risk rigorous scrutiny and the possibility of its loss? Too often contemporary people do not realize that others have also addressed themselves carefully to personal faith, to theological issues and problems, and to questions that many find so fascinating and perplexing in the present. Could it be that studying academic theology might actually benefit individuals in their own attempt to make sense of their world and to interpret it for others? Perhaps by attending to the wisdom and knowledge of those who have “done theology” well in the past, one might hope to do theology better in the present and to avoid doing bad theology. At least some who do take the risk of examining their beliefs critically in the university are gratefully surprised when they find clarity for their faith and helpful language for expressing their deepest understandings of themselves and the world around them. In this way academic theology assists people in the Socratic examination of their life. It leads them to reflect critically and constructively on their ideals, convictions, values, virtues, and practices that ground them as human beings and make their lives meaningful. Perhaps after moving through doubt and criticism about their faith, they may enter into a kind of “second naïveté,” to use the helpful notion developed by the Christian philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005), that is, a critical understanding of their faith and its symbols that nevertheless allows them to believe truthfully and live fruitfully in a new way within the symbols of their faith.56

Questions for review and discussion 1. What are three possible ways of defining the term theology? Which way best captures your own understanding? 2. What did Karl Jaspers mean by “boundary questions?” Can you provide an example of such a question? How are such questions related to theology? 3. Can you identify at least four specific examples of informal ways into theology? Which of these ways have led you into theological reflection? Which of these informal ways do you think is the most commonly traveled? What are a few key differences between “informal theology” and “academic theology?” 4. Why is the concept of “religion” so difficult to define? Which definition discussed in this chapter do you think best describes what is meant by this term religion? 5. The chapter uses several terms to describe the object that theology studies (God, the sacred, religious experience, the transcendent, etc.). Which terms 56. Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, trans. Emerson Buchanan (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 351.

23

24

Fundamental Theology

6. 7. 8.

9.

describe this object most accurately? Are there terms that you think are less helpful? Why? Can you think of other terms that describe what theology studies? What does “lex orandi, lex credendi” mean? How does that phrase relate to theology? Do you agree with the author’s assertion that even atheists are “theologians?” Why do some think that the study of specific religious traditions (e.g., Christian theology) does not belong in a university curriculum? Do you think these concerns and criticisms about teaching a specific religious tradition within a university are justified? What might be some arguments and evidence that would counter this view? What goals or outcomes do you hope to achieve as a result of your study of Christian theology?

Suggestions for further reading All the suggestions for further reading in this chapter and subsequent ones are just that: recommendations. One cannot avoid the problems of subjectivity and bias in devising such selections for further reading. Many more titles could have been given at the end of each chapter. But these are perhaps sufficient to get the student’s attention and to direct him or her to works that will themselves point in further directions. I tried to select works that are substantive and significant and that will likely have an abiding importance in the undergraduate discipline of Christian theology. The sequence of titles is alphabetical and not chronological or in order of importance. Normally, each bibliographic reference is indicated only once.

Brief introductions to Christian theology and comparative theology Hubert Canick, “Theologia,” RPP, 12.608–10. Francis Clooney, “Comparative Theology,” OHST, 653–69. Ian Markham, “Theology,” BCSR, 152–67. John Michael Owen, “Theology,” EC, 5.363–70. Christoph Schwöbel, “Theology,” RPP, 12.617–46. David Tracy, “Theology: Comparative Theology,” ER, 14.446–55. John Webster, “Introduction: Systematic Theology,” OHST, 1–15.

Reference works in religious studies and Christian theology Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel, eds., Religion Past and Present, 13 vols (New York: Brill, 2009–13). [This is an English translation of the fourth edition of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. It is the standard

Introduction: Ways into Theology

reference work for the academic disciplines of religious studies and theology. Students are well advised to begin their research here. Helpful bibliographies accompany each entry.] Lindsay Jones, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion, 15 vols, 2nd edn (New York: Thomson Gale, 2004). [Updated edition of the standard English-language encyclopedia of religious studies.]

Religious studies Lawrence S. Cunningham and John Kelsay, The Sacred Quest: An Invitation to the Study of Religion, 7th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2018). [A venerable undergraduate-level introduction to the study of religion.] Robert S. Ellwood, Introducing Religion: Religious Studies for the Twenty-First Century, 5th edn (London: Routledge, 2019). [Provides a basic overview of the study of religions for undergraduate students.] Bradley L. Herling, Beginner’s Guide to the Study of Religion, 2nd edn (London: Bloomsbury, 2016). [Describes several classic theories for interpreting “religion” and summarizes the most pressing current issues in the discipline of religious studies.] James C. Livingston, Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion, 6th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009). [Comprehensive introduction to the nature and variety of religious beliefs and practices. It provides a helpful overview of various definitions of “religion” and the myriad ways in which religions have been studied.] Richard Miller, Why Study Religion? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). [Contrary to scholars who focus primarily on theory and method, Miller concentrates on the aims of humanistic scholarship, including the study of religions. The book helps the reader to wrestle with the issue of “norms” in the study of religion.] Daniel Pals, Ten Theories of Religion, 4th edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). [Gives a good overview of the historical development of the principal theories in the discipline of religious studies. Examines theories from Tylor through Geertz to the feminist work of Mary Daly.] Robert A. Segal, ed., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 2021). [Helpful articles on all the central issues in religious studies by leading scholars.] Michael Stausberg and Steven Engler, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). [Containing fifty-one chapters by fiftyseven international contributors, this reference work provides an authoritative and systematically organized survey of recent original research in religious studies.]

The relationship between Christian theology and religious studies D. L. Bird and Simon G. Smith, eds., Theology and Religious Studies in Higher Education (New York: Continuum, 2009). [This set of essays by scholars from around the world sets forth some of the current issues and debates regarding the tensions,

25

26

Fundamental Theology

conflicts, and agreements between the academic disciplines of “religious studies” and “theology.”] Helen K. Bond, Seth D. Kunin, and Francesca Aran Murphy, eds., Religious Studies and Theology: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2003). [Describes psychological, phenomenological, anthropological, and sociological theories of religion; analyzes several key religious traditions, and then shifts to focus more directly on the Christian Bible, practical and systematic theology, and the philosophy of religion.] David F. Ford, Ben Quash, and Janet Martin Soskice, eds., Fields of Faith: Theology and Religious Studies for the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; reprint, 2011). [This collection of essays by mostly British scholars explores conflicting positions on the relationship between Christian theology and religious studies. The second part of the book includes essays that explore themes that overlap the two scholarly disciplines: God, love, Scripture, worship, argument, reconciliation, friendship, and justice.]

Part I Christian Theology

28

1 Traditions of Christianity Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.1 This chapter presents a broad overview of the historical development of the main traditions of Christianity. It introduces several key terms, outlines major movements, and provides some important contemporary statistical and demographic information about the variety of Christian church groups and traditions in the world today.

Any serious Christian theology requires a basic understanding of the shape of Christianity as a major world religion. This chapter addresses several key questions about the Christian faith. How has Christianity developed and where has it spread? In what terms have Christians defined themselves? What were the key turning points in the history of this religion, and what main groups emerged from this religion? The chapter ends by noting the challenges of understanding “Christianity” as a unified “world religion.” “Tradition” is a tricky matter. The word itself comes from the Latin word traditio, which can refer to a delivery or to something that is surrendered or handed down, as in a saying or a teaching that is passed on to others.2 The English word “traitor” derives from this same Latin term, referring as it does to someone who hands over secret things to an enemy. The Latin verb tradere (“to hand over” or “to pass on”) was itself a rendering of the Greek word paradidomi, which has the same meaning. Thus, tradition can refer both to the process of handing over someone or something and to the content of that which is transmitted. For example, the Christian apostle Paul (sometimes called Paul of Tarsus or Saint Paul [d. c. 65]) used the verbal form of this word in both senses when he defended a tradition about the resurrection of Jesus: Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it firm—unless you have believed in vain. For I handed over to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that 1. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 5 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971–89), 1.9. 2. Cf. OED, 2092, and ODCC, 2.1957–8.

30

Fundamental Theology

he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor. 15.1-5, emphasis added)3

A given theological tradition, consisting broadly of beliefs and practices, is never a static, unchanged object that is already well-defined and merely something to be passed on in total. Rather, every tradition is always contested, debated, defined, and redefined in ever new and changing situations, often over against competing traditions and views that are deemed contrary to “the tradition,” as one understands it. For example, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–c. 200) defended his understanding of Christian tradition over against others who also claimed to be Christians at that time. He did this by appealing to authoritative traditions that were taught and passed on publicly in the principal Christian cities of that time. Yet Irenaeus’ own theological understandings furthered “the tradition” precisely by critiquing these other claims. (Irenaeus’ opponents are today usually called “Gnostic” Christians because they emphasized a secret “knowledge” [Greek: gnōsis] that Jesus had supposedly taught his followers privately.)4 In the process of defending what he understood to be received tradition, Irenaeus caused the tradition itself to undergo further refinement. The Roman Catholic philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre (b. 1929) has therefore defined a tradition as “an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined.”5 If the argument comes to an end, then the tradition(s) come(s) to an end as well. An important Protestant philosopher, HansGeorg Gadamer (1900–2002), made a similar point: “Every tradition is as such not an organic event but depends on the conscious effort to preserve what has been passed [on].”6 These definitions stress the fact that traditions are dynamic in nature and involve ongoing discussions and debate in the present about what genuinely constitutes “the tradition.”7 In their respective ways, both MacIntyre and Gadamer 3. As with Jesus, the years of Paul’s birth and death are unknown. Scholars generally date his life between AD

10 and AD 65. Paul’s use of the expression “the Scriptures” (originally a phrase in Aramaic-Hebrew) refers to

the Hebrew Scriptures. The implied reference is surely to Isaiah 53. The description of the Suffering Servant of the LORD in that Old Testament (OT) chapter was used by the earliest Christians to interpret the death of Jesus. 4. Many current scholars no longer use the term Gnostic as it has been deemed unhelpful for actually understanding this religious movement. See Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); and Karen L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (London: Belknap, 2005). 5. Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 12. 6. Hans-Georg Gadamer, “The Future of the European Humanities,” in Hans-Georg Gadamer on Education, Poetry, and History: Applied Hermeneutics, ed. Dieter Misgeld and Graeme Nicholson, trans. Lawrence Schmidt and Monica Reuss (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 197. 7. Cf. the fundamental shift in contemporary understandings of traditional Chinese Taoism that was caused by the scholarly work of Kristofer Schipper (1934–2021). Prior to the start of his research, he had been told that

Traditions of Christianity

stress that coherent philosophical (and theological) discussion takes place only within traditions. More challenging is discussion and debate between distinct or differing traditions, when one is trying to make sense of the past (often by invoking classic thinkers from long ago) and to bring historic insights to bear on present problems and challenges.8 The history of every religious tradition demonstrates that such traditions have frequently undergone change and revision over time. Sometimes that change seems geologic in nature—very, very slow and almost imperceptible—as has been the case with many Eastern Orthodox beliefs and practices, which have remained remarkably stable over the centuries. In other instances, a tradition undergoes very rapid change, as happened when leaders in the Roman Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council reexamined that church’s entire range of beliefs and practices over the course of three years in the 1960s and changed some of them in rather remarkable ways.9 Whether a tradition changes rapidly or slowly, every tradition is in some measure a product of historical development, even as most every tradition seeks some kind of normative character that persists through time and social circumstance.10 Of course, the challenge for anyone interested in the integrity and truth of a given theological tradition is to articulate a way of distinguishing authentic development from inauthentic, of identifying artificial and arbitrary continuities within and among the traditions of theology and distinguishing these from real and significant connections and developments that actually sustain the heart of the tradition.

Taoism did not exist as a religion. He then spent decades identifying and collating elements of Taoist tradition, thus disproving that assertion. Such traditions had been passed down for centuries in Chinese villages, often from father to son. The life’s work of Schipper, who was raised a Mennonite Christian but became a Taoist priest, also shows that one can be committed to a religious tradition while still heeding scholarly methods and attitudes. 8. See also the basic insights by the Roman Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper (1904–97), Tradition: Concept and Claim, trans. E. Christian Kopff (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2008), who defined tradition as “something that can be received and handed down in a personal voluntary act” (10). “Tradition” takes place between unequal partners, one who hands down and one who receives. In contrast to those who think that the transmission of tradition always entails conversation, debate, and often some kind of change, Pieper stressed that one ought to learn and accept “the sacred tradition” in order to hand it down undiminished and unchanged. Still, he also acknowledged that when we take sacred tradition seriously, such a commitment may lead to creative innovation. 9. These decisions were made at the Second Vatican Council (1962–5). For example, the bishops authorized the use of vernacular languages in the celebration of the Mass, stressed the collegial character of church leadership, and opened the door for deeper, positive engagement with other Christians and people from other religions. For the decrees of this council, see Tanner, 2.817–1135. 10. See Dale T. Irvin, Christian Histories, Christian Traditioning: Rendering Accounts (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998).

31

32

Fundamental Theology

An historical overview The history of Christianity could thus be described as a history of arguments about what is essential and what is accidental or peripheral in Christian tradition. Such conflicts began already within the parent tradition of Christianity, Judaism, because of disagreements about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, who was born around 6 BC and who died around AD 30.11 Was he the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecies regarding “the Messiah” (Hebrew: Masiach = “anointed person”) or wasn’t he? In other words, was he “the Christ” (Greek: Messias; Christos = “anointed one”) who had been promised by the ancient Hebrew prophets, or wasn’t he?12 The label “Christian” was initially applied to first-century disciples (= “followers”) of Jesus because they were convinced that he was indeed the Christ. The Greek form of the word Christian occurs in three places in the New Testament (NT): in the Acts of the Apostles (11.26 and 26.28) and in First Peter (4.16). The references in Acts indicate that followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” in the Syrian city of Antioch a decade or so after the death of Jesus. Like Jesus himself, most of these followers were Jews, although by the end of the first century many Christians were non-Jews (“Gentiles”). The earliest Christian theology can be found already in the authoritative writings that have been collected in the NT, the central sacred writings of Christians. While undoubtedly many teachings that are found in the NT go back to Jesus himself, he did not write anything down for posterity, and every NT writing has been shaped by perspectives that reflect historical situations that came after Jesus’ earthly life. All of the writings in the NT were completed several decades after his death. Because first-century Christians primarily used the Jewish Scriptures to make their case that Jesus is the Christ, these Scriptures too are understood by Christians to contain 11. Throughout this book the traditional abbreviations “BC” (“Before Christ”) and “AD” (Latin: Anno Domini = “In the Year of the Lord”) will be used. These are Christian abbreviations that attempt to order time in reference to the birth of Jesus. They were created by the sixth-century Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, whose chronological calculations, based on earlier figures by Julius Africanus (160–240), included reference to the supposed incarnation of the Word in Jesus. Dionysius’ dating system was officially adopted in England in the seventh century and was widely used later by Europeans and then in the Americas. Unfortunately, Julius miscalculated the year in which Herod the Great died (Julius was off by about four years). Since Herod the Great died in 4 BC and the Gospel of Matthew indicates that Herod was still alive when Jesus was around two years old, Jesus could have been born six or seven years earlier than Julius and Dionysius figured. In other literature one will encounter the more neutral abbreviations “BCE” (“Before the Common Era”) and “CE” (“Common Era”), despite the fact that the actual numerical figure beside them is based on a Christian ordering of time. For an examination of Julius’ calculations, see A. A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 12. BDAG, 1091; cf. ABD, 4.777–88.

Traditions of Christianity

Christian theology, although Christians throughout the centuries have disagreed among themselves about how best to understand the theological content of what has traditionally been called the Old Testament (OT; “the Hebrew Bible” for Jews). Nevertheless, a central claim in the NT is that Jesus is the Christ or the Messiah (see Mk 8.27-30 and parallels; Jn 1.41), terms that mean the same thing: “the anointed one.” According to commonly held first-century Jewish expectations, when the Christ came, he was to be anointed in order to bring in God’s new age or kingdom. Thus, the word Christ was not initially used as a proper name but functioned as a title, like “president” or “king.” Whether Jesus himself accepted this title has been debated among scholars, but it is clear that the NT writings themselves attach it to Jesus (approximately 350 times). While many priests and kings had been anointed with oil in ancient Israel, there developed within ancient Israelite religion the expectation of a final anointed one, especially after the destruction of the northern tribes of Israel (721 BC) and the defeat of the southern kingdom of Judah (586 BC), which ended the kingship of the Davidic dynasty. In the wake of these events, many Jews expected this new Messiah to arrive with the new kingdom of God that would replace the old world and its subjugation of the Jews to hated foreign powers. This Christ was to be God’s agent in establishing a new world order and to serve as God’s representative within the new age. While first-century Jewish groups differed among themselves about this coming Messiah (the Essenes, e.g., apparently expected two of them, one political and the other priestly; the Sadducees seemed not to have expected any Messiah), mainstream Jewish expectations (including those of the Pharisees or “separate ones”) centered on one coming figure who would be like King David of old.13 A central concern of the NT, then, is to assert that Jesus is this Messiah, a descendent of David, and to clarify the messianic character of his life, death, and resurrection as the true fulfillment of these Jewish expectations about the Messiah. All later traditions of Christian theology have their starting point in the theological reflections that are found already in the NT itself and, by extension, in early Christian interpretations of the OT, especially its prophetic writings and the Psalms. It should be noted that Paul of Tarsus, whose writings form a large and central portion of the NT, had been a Pharisee and an opponent of early Christians, but then, according to his own testimony, he had an encounter with the risen Christ that led him to become a disciple of Jesus and an apostle (= “one who is sent”). All trajectories of Christian tradition can thus be traced back to apostolic sources in the NT and through them to Jesus, who is confessed to be “Lord” and “Messiah,” along with many other titles given to him. But within this central focus, the NT 13. Many scholars date the reign of King David to around 1000

BC.

See ABD, 2.41–9. In 1993, a ninth-

century BC stela was discovered by Dr. Avraham Birnan at Tel Dan that provides the first extra-biblical reference to the “House of David.”

33

34

Fundamental Theology

Figure 1.1  Map of the spread of Christianity in the first eight centuries.

itself contains a variety of theological perspectives about Jesus and the communities that followed him. For example, if one compares the descriptions of Jesus’ words and actions in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) with those in the Gospel of John, one might wonder if they are talking of the same person, since the descriptions are so different from one another. The NT also points to a multiplicity of models of church order, none of which is dominant. Within the so-called Pauline mission (the missionary work begun and maintained by the apostle Paul), there was a more dynamic structure than what one finds mentioned in NT documents that date from the late first century (e.g., 1 Tim.) or early second century. In the missionary activities connected to Paul, it is evident that both men and women participated as leaders, and the Spirit equipped individuals for specific ministries/functions within local congregations. Within this dynamic, charismatic structure there was room for a variety of services or gifts (charismata): apostles, who had a unique and authoritative role within earliest Christianity; traveling prophets and prophetesses; deacons and deaconesses; teachers; workers of miracles; pastors; and several others.14

14. Cf. Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1995).

Traditions of Christianity

Jesus and most of his immediate followers were Jews of one type or another. From a Roman, pagan, outsider perspective, the conflict about Jesus in the first century was one that took place within the context of Jewish tradition. Indeed, Paul himself argued with his fellow Jews regarding Jesus and the claims that his followers made about him. According to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul reached out to Gentile Christians as a key feature of his missionary work. All the available evidence suggests that the Christian message, as Paul proclaimed it, was particularly attractive to individuals who were among the lower social classes, slaves, and women. That message was about God’s grace, love, and peace in Jesus the Christ for all, for Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female (Gal. 3.26-29). It was a teaching and exhortation that surely resonated among those on the fringes of society who had been told by their superiors that they were nobodies: Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Jesus Christ, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and redemption. (1 Cor. 1.26-30)

By the time of Paul’s death (in the mid-60s AD) and then especially after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (in AD 70), what had been a movement within the Judaism of the time became more and more separated from its Jewish roots. By the end of the first century, all the original apostles had passed from the scene, and most leadership positions were being filled with Gentiles. Christianity became less and less Jewish and more and more Hellenistic-Roman, although most Christians continued to treasure the OT and those documents that form the center of the NT Scriptures. The dynamic structure in Paul’s missionary work eventually gave way to certain basic institutional forms of church order that included the specific offices of bishop (“overseer”), elder or pastor (“shepherd”), and deacon (“servant-minister”). Already by the end of the first century, several key cities in the pagan Roman Empire had Christian overseers or bishops whose spiritual authority for their city and region became more and more important over time. These key places were: Jerusalem (where Jesus was crucified and was reported to have risen from the dead, and where the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus’ followers initially took place), Antioch (the starting point for the Pauline mission), Alexandria (the center of the Egyptian churches in the Nile River delta), and Rome (the Western capital city). In the fourth century, a fifth city also became an important center of Christianity: Constantinople (the Eastern capital of the Roman Empire, which was renamed in the fourth century by Constantine the Great [d. 337], the first Christian

35

36

Fundamental Theology

emperor of the Roman Empire). While Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were all centers of Eastern Christianity, Rome eventually became the center for Western Christianity, largely because of a legend that the apostle Peter had been bishop and then martyred there, and that his bones and those of the martyred apostle Paul are buried there. By the end of the fourth century, the bishop of Rome was understood by Western priests and bishops to be the head of the Western, Latin-speaking Church (Italy, Gaul, North Africa), whereas the bishops in the four principal centers of Eastern, Greek-speaking Christianity understood the five bishops (themselves and the bishop of Rome) to be “equals” in authority and responsible for the spiritual oversight of their respective locales (dioceses) and/or regions. Nevertheless, the Eastern bishops acknowledged the primacy of the bishop of Constantinople, and they showed great respect for the bishop of Rome, to whom they occasionally appealed to settle theological disputes among the Eastern churches (as when the bishop of Constantinople and the bishop of Jerusalem became embroiled in controversy regarding the person of Christ). A chief duty of a bishop was to interpret the Scriptures truthfully and faithfully. Indeed, the formation of the Christian Bible went hand in glove with the authoritative duty of bishops and priests to proclaim and teach the Christian Scriptures correctly and, in some cases, to identify which Scriptures were in fact “Christian” and which ones were not. Recognizing the limits of the canon (the officially approved list of sacred Scriptures) went a long way toward defining what constituted normative Christian teaching. During the first three centuries of Christianity there were sporadic periods of violent persecution of Christians. The NT writings point to Jewish agitation against followers of Jesus (cf. Acts 17.5, 18.12). The emperor Nero blamed Christians for the fire in Rome that he himself likely had set (AD 64). In the early second century, other Christians were accused of “atheism” (i.e., refusing to worship the Roman gods) and of other seditious and immoral behaviors (e.g., the Lord’s Supper, where Christians consumed bread and wine as the “body and blood of Jesus,” was falsely understood to refer to cannibalism; Christian spouses who referred to each other as “sister” and “brother” were accused of practicing incest). When Christians who were caught by the state refused to recant of these charges and to worship the emperor, they were tortured and killed. The remains of such martyrs (= “witnesses”) are found in catacombs on the outskirts of Rome and elsewhere in the Mediterranean world. Later, after AD 249, more intense persecutions took place, when Christians were purposely hunted down and killed. Despite the ferocity of some of these persecutions, especially in the late third century and early fourth, the church continued to grow in numbers. Persecution of Christians came to an end only with the rise of Constantine, who first tolerated Christianity (through his Edict of Milan [AD 313]) and then favored it. By the end of the fourth century, through the decision of the last person to be sole emperor, Theodosius I (d. 395), Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman

Traditions of Christianity

Empire.15 Despite the imposition of orthodox Christianity under Theodosius and subsequent Western leaders, such as Justinian I (c. 483–565), the religious landscape in the empire was neither peaceful nor monolithic; it remained quite diverse and pluralistic even after Christianity obtained preferential official status. Following the fragmentation of Rome’s imperial order in the fifth century, successive Germanic kingdoms, who held a heretical form of Christianity (Arianism), competed for power and influence, while Christian bishops in various western locales often had to assume responsibility for maintaining law and order. Over the course of several centuries, the governing structure of the Latin-speaking, Western Church became solidified under the authority of the bishop of Rome, who was also called “pope” (Latin: papa = “father”), as were other bishops in the ancient church. After the eleventh century he was referred to with this title in an exclusive sense by Western Christians. For this reason, many prefer to speak of the post-eleventhcentury Western Church as the Roman Catholic Church, since what is “catholic” (= “general,” “universal,” i.e., “according to the whole [church]” or “according to the universal [church]”), was further qualified by what was authoritatively taught by the bishop of Rome.16 However, when referring to this Western Church prior to the eleventh century, it is more accurate to speak of “the Western Church of the Latin Rite” rather than “the Roman Catholic Church.”17 During these same early centuries, the governing structure of the Greekspeaking Eastern churches continued to be centered on the bishop or patriarch (Greek: patriarchēs = “father”) in each of the four principal cities, although the patriarch of Constantinople, the chief city in the Eastern Empire, was said to be “first among equals.” Collectively, these Eastern churches became known as the Orthodox Church, and their traditions were identified as Eastern Orthodoxy (Greek: orthodoxia = “right opinion,” “correct teaching”), since these churches are said to preserve the traditions of the faith in their true and proper form from the earliest days of the apostles.18 The two main churches of the East are the Greek Orthodox and, later, the Russian Orthodox, after the conversion of the Slavic peoples living north of the Eastern Roman Empire (“Byzantium”). Particularly important in the definition of what is “orthodox” were the decrees and decisions of the first seven ecumenical councils, which addressed various theological conflicts regarding the right teaching about God and the person of Christ.19 15. It should be noted that the Roman Empire was not the first Christian state. The Kingdom of Armenia had already adopted Christianity as its official religion several years earlier, and other smaller kingdoms had done so even earlier. By this time, the early fourth century, many Christians lived outside the Roman Empire, for example, in Arabia, in Africa, in the Caucasus, and regions further east. 16. See OED, 223; cf. ODCC, 1.356. 17. See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (New York: Penguin, 2011), 289. 18. See ODCC, 2.1409–12. 19. For the contents of these decrees, see Tanner, 1.5–156.

37

38

Fundamental Theology

The term ecumenical is based on a Greek word that refers to “the management of a household.”20 The first seven councils are called “ecumenical” or “universal” because most of them drew bishops from all parts of the Roman Empire and because these bishops sought to affirm what should be taught and believed within “the whole household of God” (the oikoumenē = “the whole inhabited world”), that is, all the churches throughout the empire.21 Eastern Orthodox Christians especially have sought to maintain fixed worship forms because of their conviction that authentic church teaching has been handed down through faithful practices in these authoritative ways. A central element within those worship forms is the authoritative creed (Latin: credo = “I believe”) that was initially articulated at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (AD 325) and then expanded at another such council that convened in Constantinople (AD 381). This creed is usually called “the Nicene Creed,” although a more accurate designation is the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.” Used regularly in the worship services of all churches that affirm the decrees of the first seven ecumenical councils, it sets forth the basic contours of the orthodox teaching about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, over against a theological error that was then causing division among Christians at that time: We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen. And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the onlybegotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures; and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father’s right hand; he is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end. And [we believe] in the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshiped and co-glorified with the Father and the Son, the one who spoke through the prophets. [We believe] in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen.22

20. OED, 495. 21. ODCC, 1.609. 22. Tanner, 1.24 (slightly modified). At the First Council of Nicaea, Arius (256–336), a priest from Alexandria, Egypt, was condemned as a heretic for teaching and preaching (on the basis of Prov. 8.22-31) that “there was a then when the Word [the Logos] did not exist” and “before the Logos was begotten or created or ordained or established, he did not exist” and “once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards he became a Father” (Arius, as quoted in Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 1.193, 195–6). Arianism held that the Logos (also called the Son) was the first creature of God and thus not fully divine or eternal as the Father.

Traditions of Christianity

The reader will immediately note that orthodox Christianity, like its parent Judaism, and its younger relative, Islam, confesses belief in one God. But unlike the other two major Western monotheistic faiths, Christianity bears witness in a unique way to Jesus of Nazareth. While Jews and Muslims do not accord divine status to Abraham, Moses, or Muhammad, Christians view Jesus the Christ differently. As American church historian Martin E. Marty (b. 1928) has noted, “Witnessing to, seeking to serve, placing hopes in, and globally propagating a vision of this God-Man, or Man-God, gives Christianity its distinctive character and force.”23 The claim that Jesus is both human and divine has always been off-putting to skeptical onlookers and other critics, but it is attractive to those who see him as the mediator between God and humans, the one who reveals God’s mercy and love for the world. Many other creeds surfaced in early Christianity, all of which were brief statements, often on particular matters, and not exhaustive theologies. Rather, these summaries served to identify the core content of the faith and were most often used in Christian worship. A more formal statement of faith can be found in an authoritative decree from an ecumenical council in the fifth century. The so-called dogmatic “Definition of the Faith” from the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) sets forth orthodox teaching about the person of Jesus, over against understandings that were also deemed heretical: Following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.24 23. Martin E. Marty, The Christian World: A Global History (New York: The Modern Library, 2007), xii. 24. Tanner, 1.86–7. It is important here to note that some churches (often called “the Oriental churches”) have not accepted this Chalcedonian Definition. One of these churches is the Assyrian Church of the East, which was influenced by the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) and Nestorius (b. after 351; d. after 451), an Antiochene monk who was the patriarch of Constantinople between his appointment in 428 and his deposition in 431. His understanding of christology led to the heresy of “Nestorianism,” which held that there are two separate persons in the incarnate Christ, the one divine and the other human. Nestorius supported

39

40

Fundamental Theology

The historical background to these dogmatic decisions in early Christianity involved not only much argument, debate, political actions, frequent misunderstanding, but also repeated earnest attempts at coming to a right understanding of the prophetic and apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. The language and phrasing in each of the abovequoted ecumenical decrees were intended to condemn heresy (“false teaching”) and heretics (“false teachers”), to ward off false understandings of God and Christ, and to set forth orthodoxy (“right teaching”). Nevertheless, this very process of coming to an official, orthodox dogmatic decision contributed to the further clarification (and thus development) of the Christian doctrinal tradition. Yet other creeds and confessions arose in the context of the administration of baptism (Greek: baptizo = “washing”), the Christian ritual of initiation and spiritual renewal. The principal baptismal creed in Western Christianity is the Apostles’ Creed. Although in early Christianity its composition had been attributed to the apostles, scholars today recognize that its earliest form arose in the third century and that it reached its present shape in the eighth century. While this creed is not used in the Eastern churches (they use the Nicene Creed), they do not object to its content. Within most Western churches (but not all), the Apostles’ Creed is used in connection with baptism and in other worship services: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to hell [or: “to the dead”]. He ascended into the heavens. He is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and life everlasting. Amen.25

This creed is included in most Western catechisms (instructional books) as the principal means for teaching the orthodox Christian faith to those seeking baptism or to those who are undergoing further instruction in the basics of that faith. Both Eastern and Western branches of Christianity eventually developed fixed forms of church offices, worship services, and other institutions that gave shape to their respective traditions. Central to defining both streams of tradition is a long those who rejected the use of the term Theotokos (“bearer of God”) in reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus. At a council of Rome in 430 Nestorius’ teaching was condemned by Pope Celestine (d. 432). At the Council of Ephesus in 431 Nestorius’ teaching was condemned and he was deposed from his office. He returned to his monastery at Antioch but later was banished to Egypt, where he eventually died. See ODCC, 2.1339–40. The Monophysite churches in Egypt (the Coptic Orthodox Church) and Ethiopia also do not recognize the teaching of Chalcedon. They maintain that in the person of Christ there is but a single, divine nature (“monophysite”) after the incarnation, not two natures (divine and human), as confessed by the Chalcedonian Definition. 25. The Apostles’ Creed, BC, 21–2; cf. Denzinger, 30.

Traditions of Christianity

history of biblical interpretation (especially by the “church fathers”—certain revered teachers and leaders of the early church), the decrees of the ecumenical councils, the liturgies, a body of church law (“canon law”) that developed gradually to address new situations, and objects used in devotional and worship settings (such as icons, crucifixes, and liturgical art). Among the most long-lasting and influential institutions were the various monastic communities that spread around the world. The example of Antony of Egypt (c. 251–356)—who sold all he had, gave the proceeds to the poor, and retreated to the desert to live a solitary life of holiness—was particularly influential. He later organized communities of fellow Christian ascetics. These and other close-knit monastic communities of celibate men or women were places of prayer, ascetic practices, and charitable activity, and later of book copying. In times of worldly crisis, such as when the Roman Empire gradually declined and collapsed, these monastic communities were crucial in preserving elements of Western culture and in transmitting many different types of theological writing.26 Important bishoprics developed cathedral schools, which also became important centers of learning, some of which later developed into the first European universities. Despite the fact that both the Western Church and most Eastern churches recognize the decrees and decisions of the first seven ecumenical councils (which took place between AD 325 and 787), several factors, both theological and cultural, led to the eventual schism (separation) in AD 1054 between these two main branches of early Christianity. While the issues that led to this separation are complex and involve more than merely theological disagreements, one factor that contributed to the division was the Western innovation (after AD 589) of inserting “and the Son” into the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus unilaterally modifying that creed’s assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely “from [God] the Father” and not, as the later Western version has it, “from the Father and the Son.”27 While this innovation may strike many today as rather trivial, it is not so viewed by Eastern theologians, who insist that the unity of God is thereby undermined by the Western innovation and that the ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church was thereby inappropriately and errantly changed.28 Still other conflicts arose between East and West, including whether the bishop of Rome is the head of only the Western Church (the Eastern Orthodox view, shared also by some Protestant Christians) or of the whole church on earth (the Roman Catholic view), whether priests may marry (in the Orthodox Church priests may marry, but usually not bishops; in the Roman Church, no clergy 26. For the importance of Celtic Christian monasteries in the preservation of Christian tradition, see John T. McNeill, The Celtic Churches: A History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974); and Ian Bradley, Following the Celtic Way: A New Assessment of Celtic Christianity (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2018). 27. Cf. Tanner, 1.24; Denzinger, 125–6, 150. 28. Because of their reverence for sacred tradition as a stable body of authoritative teaching and practice, the Eastern Orthodox churches typically capitalize the word Tradition.

41

42

Fundamental Theology

may marry, apart from a few exceptions), and whether additional councils beyond the first seven have theological authority (the Eastern Orthodox recognize only the first seven, whereas the Roman Church holds to many more, including most recently the Second Vatican Council).29 Unlike the Eastern churches, which have generally been able to avoid major schism in their history (aside from conflicts with the Syriac, Ethiopian, and Coptic churches, the major schism with Rome in 1054, and the current division between the patriarchate of Russia and the ecumenical patriarchate in Constantinople—now Istanbul, Turkey—regarding Ukraine), the Western Church has undergone profound and complicated divisions since medieval times. Chief among these is the cluster of divisions that occurred in the sixteenth century in the wake of reforms that Martin Luther (1483–1546) inaugurated in Germany, that John Calvin (1509–64) and Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) established in Switzerland, and that Henry VIII (1491–1547) and his Protestant successors set forth in England. While each of these reform movements had its distinctive characteristics, all were united in their rejection of the pope’s supreme authority over the whole church and in their insistence, against the bishop of Rome, on certain characteristic teachings and practices. For example, most Protestant Christians teach that a human being receives the forgiveness of sins solely by faith alone in Christ alone and not in any way because of actions they do. Protestants maintain that the OT and NT Scriptures alone are the sole authority in matters of faith and life. Protestants place a strong emphasis upon reading the Bible. (Luther worked strenuously for years to translate the entire Bible into a German dialect that local people could understand. Indeed, Luther’s translation of the Bible was a fundamental turning point in the development of the German language.) Most Protestant churches administer only two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper [also called the Eucharist or Holy Communion]), or possibly three (by including the confession of sins as the third). Both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine are distributed in the Lord’s Supper. The language used in the worship service is one that the local people use (a practice that Roman Catholicism also adopted after the Second Vatican Council). Protestant pastors may marry. Protestants also hold that some traditional Roman Catholic beliefs and practices are inconsistent with the apostolic foundation of teaching that is given in the NT (e.g., the sale of indulgences; belief in purgatory; intercession of the saints; veneration of the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus; the immaculate conception of Mary; and her bodily assumption into heaven). Each of the main reform movements that began within the Western Catholic Church stressed its continuity with the apostles and early Christian theologians, and they appropriated the label “catholic” for their teachings and church practices. However, a succession of Roman popes and the Catholic bishops loyal to them took 29. See Tanner, 1.157–655, 2.657–1135.

Traditions of Christianity

actions against these changes and judged the reformers and their followers to be heretics who were guilty of teaching false doctrine. After 1529 many of these reform movements were grouped together under the label Protestant, a term that referred to their “protest” against the halting of reform efforts by the Holy Roman emperor at the time. While Luther did not want those who accepted his reforms to be called “Lutheran” or “Protestant” (he preferred the term evangelical [Greek: euaggelion = “good news”]), much less to establish a new sect, his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church in 1521 can be understood as the event that most directly led to the formation of distinct “Lutheran” churches. The excommunication of Henry VIII similarly led to the formation of the distinct Anglican Church. Its spiritual authority is connected to the archbishop of Canterbury, and its history has been marked by internal movements or groups that have been oriented either toward reunion with Rome or against Roman influence within the Church of England, as it is sometimes also called. Each of the principal Protestant churches (Evangelical-Lutheran, Reformed [Calvinist-Zwinglian], and Anglican) developed its own confessional statements that define its understanding of the Christian faith and church practices based on the teachings of Holy Scripture and that criticize errant beliefs and practices in the Roman Church and others. In the case of the Lutherans, the Augsburg Confession (1530) and the Small Catechism of Luther (1529) are the central documents. (These documents were later collected together with other central confessional writings from sixteenth-century Lutheran reformers and published as the Book of Concord in 1580.) For the Reformed, the Heidelberg Catechism (1562) and the Westminster Confession (1647) are especially important, as are the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, later modified) and, for the Anglican Church, the Book of Common Prayer (initially published in 1549 and later revised).30 Within the perspective of these Protestant churches and their heirs, the post-sixteenth-century Roman Catholic Church, which solidified its specific teachings and practices at the Council of Trent (1545– 63) and the First Vatican Council (1869–70), was viewed as a more or less flawed church body that had adopted theological positions at odds with the clear teaching of apostolic Scripture: papal primacy/supremacy and infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary and her bodily assumption into heaven, forced clerical celibacy, seven sacraments, mandatory private confession, the use of indulgences, and so on.31 30. It needs to be noted that many Lutheran and Anglican-Episcopal Christians do not consider themselves to be “Protestant,” since they understand themselves to be in continuity with the Western Catholic Church, which dates from the first century. Some Lutherans thus prefer to be identified as “evangelical catholics.” 31. A classic example of a Lutheran critique of the decrees from the Council of Trent is Martin Chemnitz, An Examination of the Council of Trent, 4 vols, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia, 1986). Chemnitz (1522–86), a professor of theology at Wittenberg, was a primary drafter of the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577).

43

44

Fundamental Theology

Within the Roman Catholic Church, however, theologians argued against Protestant views and defended their own theological teachings as legitimate developments of both Scripture and church tradition. It is important to note that since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has reexamined and, in some cases, reformed its teachings and practices. For example, it authorized the Mass to be celebrated in the language of the local people, and it called for greater unity among the divided churches. Subsequent to that groundbreaking council, Catholic leaders have pursued ways to foster ecumenical dialogue with Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and other Protestant churches, as well as with representatives of the Orthodox churches (as well as non-Christian religions). The Roman Catholic Church remains the single largest Christian church body in the world, with around 1.3 billion baptized members. In the twentieth century a number of smaller national Catholic churches (e.g., the Church of Utrecht) broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and formed what is called “The Old Catholic Church,” which holds to the first seven ecumenical councils and the dogmatic decisions of the Eastern Orthodox Church and rejects the primacy and infallibility of the pope. Clergy and bishops in this church body are permitted to marry, the consecrated bread and wine are both given in Holy Communion, and the words of the liturgy are in the vernacular. These churches are now in fellowship with the Anglican Church. Several other Protestant churches or denominations, as they are sometimes called, received their start in the sixteenth century, either by breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church or by splitting off from one of the main Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican), which were viewed as corrupt in one way or another. Anabaptists (“rebaptizers”) refused to baptize infants and young children and insisted that only believing older children and adults should be baptized. They teach that only the baptism of mature believers who can understand and declare their faith is authentic baptism. Many Anabaptists also criticize and withdraw from secular forms of government, and most insist upon strict pacifism. Other “restorationist” churches sought to return to what they considered to be pure, early Christianity, and some sought to return to OT laws (such as allowing for polygamy). Luther, Calvin, and the Roman Catholic authorities rejected these ideas. Those who held them were often persecuted in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. One set of Protestant churches traces its spiritual heritage back to the fifteenth century, a century before the time of Luther and Calvin. This set of traditions centers on the Moravian Church, whose key figure was the important fifteenth-century reformer, John Hus (c. 1372–1415). He insisted that Christians should receive both the consecrated bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper. Later, under the strong influence of the Lutheran pastor Nikolaus von Zinzendorf (1700–60), this church stressed personal conversion and individual piety as key features of the Christian life. Because of this focus, pious experience and missionary service were viewed as

Traditions of Christianity

more important than intellectual understanding of the faith, although several key academic theologians have come from this church body. Likewise, other churches, such as the Methodist churches, have been influenced by the Moravian understanding of piety. Charles Wesley (1707–88) and his brother, John Wesley (1703–91), who were originally clergymen in the Anglican Church, promoted a particular method of religious faith and piety that had a close resemblance to the spiritual emphases coming from the Moravian Brethren, as did George Whitefield (1714–70), the other founder of the Methodist movement. (John Wesley had visited the Moravian community at Herrnhut, where Zinzendorf had been the major figure.) These Methodist emphases also included a strong sense of missionary zeal to spread the love of God in the gospel of Jesus to people who do not know it. Most Methodist churches reject the Lutheran and Reformed teaching about the slavery of the human will to sin (Luther and Calvin held that human beings are incapable of turning to God or cooperating with his grace) as well as the Calvinist teaching about predestination (that from all eternity God has decreed who will be saved and who will be damned). Methodists insist that individuals have a free will that can either accept or reject God’s universal offer of divine mercy. For Methodists, the call to faith is inseparable from the call to holiness of life (sometimes called “sanctification”). For John Wesley, Christian perfection, which is brought about by the grace of the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of believers, meant the fulfillment of sanctification, that is, loving God and others with one’s whole heart. (By contrast, Zinzendorf insisted, following Luther, that the Christian’s holiness is always only in Christ. It is thus an external righteousness and holiness, found only in Christ, never in Christians themselves.) Many of the individual churches that developed within the broad Reformed theological tradition (shaped by the ideas of Calvin and Zwingli) differ from one another with respect to church government. The founders of the Presbyterian churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (in Scotland) insisted that their form of church polity, in which a council of elders or presbyters (Greek: presbuteros = “old person”; “elder”) governs the local church, returned the church to an authentically apostolic form of government. Congregational churches, on the other hand, used a more democratic form of church polity and insisted upon “the priesthood of all believers” under Christ, an idea also taught by Luther. Congregationalism developed in England in the sixteenth century as a protest movement against “Roman” influences within the Church of England. While some individuals sought to remain within the Church of England (to try to purify it of Roman elements; hence the term “Puritans”), other men and women met together to preach the pure word of God and administer the sacraments as “Separatists” from the national church body. (Before the 1630s, most “Puritans” were members of the Church of England.) Separatism gradually became more clearly defined Congregationalism. Under persecution,

45

46

Fundamental Theology

some of these separatists practiced their faith in secret, while others emigrated to the Netherlands and then to the United States.32 While these groups had complexities of their own, they, too, generally reflected the theology and practices of Calvin. Ecumenical agreements among Protestant churches led to the formation of so-called union or uniting churches in the twentieth century. One such church is the Church of South India, a uniting church that formed from the merger of Presbyterian, Methodist, and Anglican churches. In America the United Church of Christ formed from the merger of several Congregational churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church—an originally German body that included both Lutheran (“Evangelical”) and Calvinist (“Reformed”) strains. In 2017, at the time of the 500th anniversary of the start of Luther’s reform movement, scholars estimated that there were approximately 586 million Protestant Christians in more than 200 countries.33 There may well be more than 38,000 separate Christian denominations in the world today.34 Some of these are individual nondenominational “evangelical” churches that are unaffiliated with any other congregation or association, although their teachings are often related to other Protestant traditions, especially the Reformed.35 Among these larger Protestant traditions, especially in the United States, is the so-called Baptist tradition, whose origins lie with sixteenth-century “separatists” not only in the Netherlands and later in old England, but also among the Anabaptists in Switzerland (who also rejected infant baptism). Unlike the Calvinists and more like the Methodists, the Baptists stress the free will of human beings to accept or to reject God’s grace. This idea was classically articulated by a sixteenth-century 32. David Thompson, “Congregationalism,” ODCC, 462. 33. Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, eds., World Christian Encyclopedia, 3rd edn (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020), 24. 34. Marty, The Christian World, 4. 35. It is important to underscore that the term evangelical in this contemporary American context means something quite different from what it meant in sixteenth-century Lutheranism. Luther used the German term evangelisch to refer to the gospel about Jesus and the forgiveness of sins through his death and resurrection. Since the sixteenth century, many Lutheran churches and some other Protestant churches have understood evangelical to be synonymous with “Protestant” or “Lutheran,” especially in Germany. Many Lutheran churches that follow the teachings of Luther also use this word in the sense that he gave it. But after 1942, with the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals, this word began to take on a different meaning. It generally defined those American Protestants and their denominations that opposed the “modernist,” liberal, and ecumenical Federal Council of Churches (later called the National Council of Churches). In this context an “evangelical” is a conservative Protestant Christian who has undergone a conversion experience (“being born again”) and who affirms the inerrancy of the Bible, the miracles it reports, the blood atonement of Jesus, his physical resurrection, and his Second Coming. Most evangelicals also oppose the theory of evolution in favor of what is often called “six-day creationism” (based on a literal interpretation of Gen. 1). Since the 1950s, many American evangelicals have generally supported conservative, Republican political causes.

Traditions of Christianity

Dutch Reformed theologian, Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), who doubted and then rejected the Calvinist teaching about predestination. Arminius insisted that Christ desires everyone to be saved and to respond freely to the salvation he offers. This view eventually led Baptists (and most Methodists, too) to emphasize “revival” meetings in order to bring about a personal conversion experience (“being born again”) that is then followed by baptism as the external symbol of this inward conversion to Christ (“Believers Baptism”). Baptists insist on the full immersion of believers in baptism. In spite of their tremendous institutional variety and strong individualism, Baptist churches are perhaps the most visible example in North America of what Americans mean when they speak of Protestant evangelicalism. Like Methodists, Baptists, too, have a strong sense of Christian mission and evangelism, and they want to convince non-Christians of the truths about God, sinful human beings, and the salvation offered in Christ. The Baptist tradition in America includes such specific denominations as the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Church, and many independent and nondenominational churches. The Adventist movement, which attracted large numbers of Baptists after the 1830s, was begun by William Miller (1782–1849), who had predicted the Second Advent or Second Coming of Christ in 1843–4. The chief Adventist group today is the Seventh-Day Adventists, one of whose key teachings is that Christians should not work on the sabbath, that is, from Friday evening to Saturday evening. (Another movement, the “Reconstructionist” churches, strive to keep all or most of the OT laws, and they desire to turn the United States into a theocracy based on those laws.) Also emerging from the Reformed theological tradition, though departing from it in important ways, are the so-called Dispensational churches. They teach that history can be divided into seven periods or “dispensations” and that the final dispensation will be a future literal “millennial” or thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. Many well-known American Christians have defended dispensationalism, including the evangelist Billy Graham (1918–2018). Dispensational or millennial Christians fall into two groups, those who believe that the millennium will follow the Second Coming of Christ (“pre-millennialists”) and those who think it will precede Christ’s return to earth (“post-millennialists”). It should be acknowledged, however, that Christians in several other denominations (Adventist, Plymouth Brethren, Baptist, Methodist) also have millenarian beliefs. All of these are convinced that people today are living in the final days of the earth and that the literal return of the risen Jesus is imminent.36 36. While millenarian beliefs have frequently popped up in the history of Christianity since the second century, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and liberal Protestant churches do not interpret the twentieth chapter in Revelation to teach a literal millennial reign of Christ on earth. They maintain that the 1000 years should be understood figuratively to refer to the perfect reign of Christ that has begun with his resurrection and ascension.

47

48

Fundamental Theology

Two other American Protestant groups are the Society of Friends, commonly known also as the “Quakers,” which was begun by George Fox (1624–91), and the numerous Holiness-Pentecostal churches that have developed since the beginning of the twentieth century. The Society of Friends emphasizes the immediacy of Christ’s truth and the “Inner Light” that can be known directly within each individual, thus making superfluous the need for ordained ministers or any formal, prearranged structure for worship. The Holiness churches, which developed from the Wesleyan-Methodist tradition and its influence on Protestant revivals, stress the centrality of sanctification, that is, a growth in holiness through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and personal obedience to righteousness. Phoebe Palmer (1807–74), a Methodist evangelist, developed what she called “the shorter way” to complete sanctification. This shorter way entailed an interior act of faith in which she placed “everything on the altar” and by doing so believed that she had received the blessing of the full sanctification she sought. By surrendering herself completely to God, she believed that God had accepted this sacrifice and that she had thus become perfectly holy. The Church of the Nazarene is the best-known holiness church in the United States. Pentecostalism is closely related to the Holiness churches since its modern form grew out of the latter toward the end of the nineteenth century. Many Pentecostal churches have either a Methodist (holiness) or a Baptist background. The Pentecostal label comes from the experience that followed fifty days after Christ’s resurrection, on the Day of Pentecost (described in Acts 2). There the disciples of Jesus are depicted as having received the gift of the Holy Spirit so as to speak in unfamiliar languages (see also 1 Cor. 14). Whereas the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican churches generally teach that this special gift was limited to the time of the original apostolic church and merely equipped them to carry the gospel message to foreign-speaking lands, modern Pentecostal Christians insist that yearning for and receiving the gift of “tongues” (understood as a “spiritual,” non-worldly language) directly from the Holy Spirit is a sign of (non-water) “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” These Christians teach that other “charismatic” gifts of the Spirit, such as miraculous healing, are also essential marks of the true church of Christ. In the United States the Assemblies of God and most of the Church of God congregations are examples of this form of Protestant Christianity. Pentecostalism has spread very widely throughout the world, including in Africa and South America, where it has gained hundreds of millions of adherents. As we can see from just this brief and incomplete sketch, the history of Christian traditions is very complicated. Contemporary Christianity continues to be marked by differing understandings of church government (polity and church leadership), theology (especially relating to teachings about sin, salvation, the sacraments, and the nature of the church), ethics (especially sexual ethics), and the relation of faith to cultural expression.

Traditions of Christianity

The distribution of Christian traditions The transmission of Christian traditions is not only a temporal phenomenon of history; it is also reflected geographically. Christianity is a “missionary religion.” Its spread is the direct result of the command of the risen Christ that is recorded at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt. 28.18b-20). The Book of Acts reports that prior to his ascension, the risen Christ said to his disciples, “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1.8). Crucial for the initial growth of the church among Gentiles was the work of the apostles, especially Paul, whose extant letters indicate that many people, both men and women, served as missionaries and leaders in the early church. Among those whom he praised were Phoebe, an early minister (Rom. 16.1-2), Priscilla, an important female teacher of the faith (Rom. 16.3; cf. Acts 18.2-4, 24-28), other women whom Paul called his “coworkers” (Phil. 4.3), and Epaphras (Col. 1.7), who taught the gospel to the Colossians. There must have been many a Phoebe and many an Epaphras whose name and mission work went entirely unrecorded. Since the first century, the Christian mission has “gone global,” spreading to all seven inhabited continents. This process of outreach and expansion has not been one of steady growth. The Christian mission at times has advanced quickly (as has happened in the Mediterranean and Asian world in the first three centuries, and in Africa in the past century), while at other times it receded. At times, the cultural impact of Christians and Christian teaching has been profound, while too often the Christian mission has led to violence and overwhelming harm (as happened during the medieval Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and imperial conquests in the Americas and elsewhere). In some places, the message about Christ was met with surprisingly grateful reception on the part of the Indigenous people who were encountered by Christian missionaries, while in many other places such mission work was met with bitter resistance and entailed much conflict.37 Most often, the influence of Christians was indirect and informal, as when early Christian traders and trekkers worked their way east from Antioch in Syria, traveling along the Silk Road, through Mongolia and into China. Some stopped along the way to 37. See David Lindenfeld, World Christianity and Indigenous Experience: A Global History, 1500–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).

49

50

Fundamental Theology

set up more permanent residence in various locales. In other instances, the Christian mission has been more formal and intentional, often involving key personalities who felt called to share the gospel with others in word and deed. Those who come to mind immediately include Patrick (fifth century), missionary to the Irish; Augustine of Canterbury (d. after 604), missionary to Kent in England (and the first archbishop of Canterbury [not to be confused with the African church father Augustine of Hippo (354–430)]; Boniface (c. 675–754), missionary to Germany; the two brothers, Cyril (826–869) and Methodius (c. 815–885), who founded churches among the Slavs; Francis Xavier (1506–52), missionary in India and China; Matteo Ricci (1552–1610), missionary in China; Bartolomé de las Casas (1484–1566), missionary in the West Indies and Central America; Charlotte Moon (1840–1912), missionary in China; Robert Moffatt (1795–1883), David Livingstone (1813–73), and Mabel Shaw (1888– 1973), renowned missionaries who served in Africa. Before narrowing our focus in the next chapter to key theologians within mainstream Christian theology, we should take note of some basic geographical and demographical information about contemporary Christian groups. According to one reputable database, in 2020 there were approximately 2.5 billion people in the world who identify themselves as Christian.38 This figure means that Christianity has the most adherents of any of the major world religions. The following chart shows a rough estimate of the demographics of the world religions in 2020: Religion

Approximate Number Principal Geographical Center(s) of Adherents

Christianity Islam Hinduism Other religions “None” Buddhism Folk/Indigenous religions Judaism

2.5 billion 1.9 billion 1.2 billion 700 million 600 million 500 million 430 million 10 million

Africa, the Americas, Europe, Asia Central Asia, North Africa, Indonesia India Asia, the Americas, Africa, Australia Asia, Europe, North America Asia, Africa, Australia Asia, Africa, Latin America Israel, North America

Figure 1.2  Religion demographics table.

The demographics of global Christianity have changed dramatically over the past century. In 1910, nearly two-thirds of all Christians lived in Europe. Today less than one-fourth lives in that region, and the number of Christians in those countries is undergoing significant decline. The recession from Christianity in Europe and North America has only accelerated in the past half century. Today, the majority of the world’s Christians live in the Americas (37 percent), sub-Saharan Africa (26 percent), and the Asia-Pacific region (13 percent). Two-thirds of the 200 or so countries in the 38. Johnson and Zurlo, eds., World Christian Encyclopedia, 20.

Traditions of Christianity

world have Christian majorities. Altogether, Christians account for approximately 31.2 percent of the world’s total population. Islam is the faith of about 22.5 percent of the world’s population, although some demographic projections suggest that by the year 2060 there will be roughly 3 billion Muslims in the world compared to 3.1 billion Christians.39 While the number of Christians who live north of the equator is declining, the number of those who live south of the equator is significantly rising, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1900 the number of Christians in Africa was only around 10 million, but today that number is more than 500 million. Some scholars predict that by the 2040s there will be more than 1 billion Christians living in Africa.40 By 2050 Kenya alone could have more than 80 million Christians, far more than any European nation. According to one estimate, there may be more than 112 million Christians in China.41 Ironically, only about 4 percent of people living in the Middle East and North Africa identify themselves as Christian, despite the fact that early Christianity first developed in these regions, and Middle Eastern Christians are declining in numbers. Of all the countries in the world, the United States has the most citizens who identify themselves as Christian (approximately 250 million), and Brazil has the second highest number (approximately 180 million). Other countries with large Christian majorities include Mexico, Russia, the Philippines, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Germany.42 But this same Pew report suggests that by the year 2060 that “top ten” list will be different. While the United States and Brazil will still top the chart, most of the other countries on it will be African: Nigeria, Congo, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia. The largest subgroup of Christians in the world is Roman Catholic (approximately 1.3 billion baptized members). The next largest is Protestant/Independents (approximately 900 million), and the third largest is the Eastern Orthodox (around 220 million). The Roman Catholic Church thus comprises about 16 percent of the world’s population and makes up more than 50 percent of the total population of Christians in the world. Protestant groups together comprise 12.5 percent of the 39. https://www.pewr​esea​rch.org/relig​ion/2017/04/05/the-chang​ing-glo​bal-religi​ous-landsc​ape/ (accessed October 31, 2022). 40. Philip Jenkins, “Kenya Rising,” The Christian Century (April 8, 2020), 44. 41. See Fenggang Yang, Atlas of Religion in China: Social and Geographical Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 31, 43. More than 100 million may be Protestants, while there are about 12 million who are Catholic. The World Christian Database indicates a slightly lower figure, approximately 106 million total Christians (c. 10 million Roman Catholics and 96 million Protestants). See Johnson and Zurlo, eds., World Christian Encyclopedia, 195. 42.

The

Pew

Research

Center,

https://www.pewr​esea​rch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/01/the-countr​

ies-with-the-10-larg​est-christ​ian-popu​lati​ons-and-the-10-larg​est-mus​lim-popu​lati​ons/ 31, 2022).

(accessed

October

51

52

Fundamental Theology

The Apostles of Jesus

Eastern Christianities

Eastern Orthodox Churches

Roman Catholic Church

Western Christianities Moravian Church

Old Catholic Churches Anabaptist Churches

EvangelicalLutheran Churches Anglican Churches Reformed Churches Union/United Churches

Presbyterian Churches Congregationalist Churches Baptist Churches Adventist Churches Society of Friends

Methodist Churches Restorationist Churches Dispensationalist Churches

Holiness Churches Non-denominational Churches Pentecostal Churches

Figure 1.3  Major groupings of Christian tradition.

world’s population and about 38 percent of all Christians in the world. The Orthodox, about 11 percent of all Christians, embody approximately 2.8 percent of the world’s population. Within the United States, approximately 65 percent of adults (those older than 18) identify themselves as some form of Christian.43 That is around 168 million 43. The Pew Research Center, https://www.pewr​esea​rch.org/relig​ion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decl​ine-of-chris​

Traditions of Christianity

people.44 Given that those younger than 18 are not included in this data, the overall number of Christians in the United States is larger. While most Christians in the United States are some version of “Protestant,” the Roman Catholic Church remains the single largest religious group or denomination in the United States, with around 53 million adult members.45 Research on the structure and organization of Protestants in this country indicates that the denominational groupings that have historically been significant are in numerical decline, that loyalty to denominations is generally not as strong as it used to be, and that within traditional denominations there are divisions between those who are more politically liberal and those who are more conservative. All subsets of the religiously unaffiliated US population (atheists, agnostics, and the category called “nones”—those who say they have no religion—many of them former Christians) have seen their numbers grow over the past three decades, especially among young adults. That share of the American adult population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular,” now stands somewhere between 26 percent and 34 percent (depending on the research data one cites), a significantly higher figure compared to the much lower percentages that were reported in the 1980s.46 US adults who tian​ity-contin​ues-at-rapid-pace/ (accessed October 31, 2022). The 2021 General Social Survey (GSS) has a slightly lower percentage (63 percent): https://gssd​atae​xplo​rer.norc.org/variab​les/287/vshow (accessed November 4, 2022). 44. The US Census Bureau reports that there were approximately 259 million adults living in the United States in 2020. https://usafa​cts.org/data/top​ics/peo​ple-soci​ety/pop​ulat​ion-and-demog​raph​ics/pop​ulat​ion-data/ pop​ulat​ion/ (accessed November 4, 2022). 45. 2021 GSS report. The 2020 data from the Cooperative Election Study (CES) indicates a lower number of US adult Catholics, perhaps around 46 million: https://cces.gov.harv​ard.edu/ (accessed November 4, 2022). The 2019 Pew report on the decline of American Christianity puts that figure at around 52 million: https:// www.pewr​esea​rch.org/relig​ion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decl​ine-of-chris​tian​ity-contin​ues-at-rapid-pace/ (accessed October 31, 2022). According to the 2021 GSS report, “Protestant” Christians represent approximately 39.4 percent of the adult population in the United States (c. 110 million people). Keep in mind, however, that many of these church bodies consider baptized infants and children to be members of their churches, so the actual number of Christians in these groups is higher than these statistics indicate. Johnson and Zurlo state the total number of Roman Catholics in the United States in 2019 as 73.9 million (presumably inclusive of baptized infants and children). See Johnson and Zurlo, eds., World Christian Encyclopedia, 841. 46. The Pew Research Center, https://www.pewr​esea​rch.org/relig​ion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decl​ine-ofchris​tian​ity-contin​ues-at-rapid-pace/ (accessed October 31, 2022). Cf. the 2021 GSS report, which puts that percentage at nearly 28 percent. The 2020 CES data indicates an even higher percentage, c. 34.5 percent. See also the analysis by Ryan P. Burge, The Nones (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021), which is based on 2018 data by the GSS and CES. Burge notes that 73 percent of the “nones” have no higher education. Cf. Joel Thiessen and Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme, None of the Above: Nonreligious Identity in the US and Canada (New York: New York University Press, 2020).

53

54

Fundamental Theology

identify as atheists now represent between 4 percent and 6 percent of the total adult population (in 2009, that figure was 2 percent), while agnostics (those who are not sure about God, one way or the other), make up around 5 percent, up from 3 percent a decade ago.47 Nevertheless, while a growing number of Americans today refuse to give a religious identity when asked than was the case a half century ago, approximately eight in ten American adults continue to answer “yes” when asked, “Do you believe in God?”48 In other words, many of the “nones” are not necessarily “atheists” or “agnostics.”

Apostolic tradition and the traditions of Christendom Obviously, the Christian tradition is much more diverse in its forms and expressions, its geographical expansion, and its cultural variety, than at any previous time in the history of Christianity. Central to the preservation of this religious tradition have been a relatively fixed set of sacred writings (the biblical canon), the formulation of formal teachings in creeds and dogmatic statements (confessions of faith), and the development of a multiplicity of church orders and structures of governing and worshiping. A Protestant Christian, especially one who is a confessional Lutheran and ecumenically oriented, will stress that the biblical canon and the historic creeds serve to keep the church grounded in the events that founded the church, as they are attested to within the apostolic witness. But as the German Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink (1903–84) says, “This backward gaze of faith is always at the same time a looking forward in hope.”49 The church has to remain open to new guidance from the Holy Spirit as it awaits Christ’s future coming. Following Schlink’s lead, we can speak of three areas of Christian tradition that surround each other like concentric circles but are not separated from each other 47. The Pew Research Center, https://www.pewr​esea​rch.org/relig​ion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decl​ine-of-chris​ tian​ity-contin​ues-at-rapid-pace/ (accessed October 31, 2022). The 2020 CES data indicates around 6 percent of Americans are atheists. A 2022 Gallup Poll points to an even higher percentage: https://news.gal​lup.com/ poll/393​737/bel​ief-god-dips-new-low.aspx (accessed November 9, 2022). Keep in mind, however, that many so-called “atheists” still believe in a “higher power.” Such individuals simply reject a belief in “God as described in the Bible.” 48. Gallup Poll (May 2, 2022): https://news.gal​lup.com/poll/393​737/bel​ief-god-dips-new-low.aspx (accessed November 9, 2022). All of the past Gallup polling data shows that the percentage of Americans who answer “yes” to the “God” question remained above 90 percent through 2010. Since then, however, that percentage has declined to around 81 percent. 49. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/2.994.

Traditions of Christianity

with respect to their details. The biblical canon, confessions of faith (containing formal church teaching or “dogma”), and church orders may be understood as tradition in the narrowest sense. These act as constants in the life of the church, especially in the context of worship and instruction, where Holy Scripture has a preeminent, normative authority. Outstanding teachers of the Christian faith and major turning points in church history can be understood as tradition in a broader sense. The interpretations of Scripture and teaching by classic theologians have had a profound influence on subsequent generations. Finally, we may point to the more ordinary but absolutely vital practices like sermons, catechetical instruction, and ongoing theological research, as well as to the prayers of the faithful, their actions done in the name of Christ, and their expressions of personal piety—all of this and more in the broadest sense constitutes “Christian tradition.” Because considerable differences exist among Christian groups in all three of these concentric circles of Christian tradition (e.g., not all Christians maintain the same set of biblical writings, there are persisting doctrinal differences), and because there are also differences in the weight that is accorded to the various types of tradition across the different groups, there is the ongoing need to overcome such differences (or to recognize that not all differences need to imply church division). Yes, some divisions are necessary, as when one group is convinced that others who bear the name of Christ are teaching contrary the gospel to the point of apostasy (cf. Gal. 1.8-9; 1 Jn 4.2-3). The Scriptures do warn about false prophets and false apostles. Other divisions that resulted from various other, often nontheological factors need not concern us here. Suffice it to say that at present there is still an ongoing need for ecumenical work, since disunity among Christians certainly calls into question the credibility of the Christian message. How can the message of God’s love for the world be true if Christians do not even love one another? How can the message of God’s act of reconciliation in Christ be true if it is proclaimed by those who live unreconciled with each other or even fight against each other publicly? It is a scandal that Christendom, with its divisions and antagonisms, offers the world the same spectacle as we see in the juxtaposition and conflict of nations and states. Because of the divided state of Christendom, Jesus’ victory over the world is denied, and the world’s divisions and hostilities become legitimized.50

Moreover, given the many crimes and unethical behaviors that have been done by Christian leaders in the past few decades, is it any wonder that many have rejected Christianity as just one more set of corrupt institutions in the world? If such people who claim to represent the Christian community will not “walk the talk,” why should a person even consider joining a Christian church? 50. Ibid., 2/2.1002.

55

56

Fundamental Theology

Clearly, there is a need for what Christians call “repentance,” a change of heart and mind, and a turn to faith and renewed life. Such repentance, on the part of both Christian individuals and entire church bodies, must entail sober self-criticism of their own actions, of their tradition, its weaknesses and failures, as well as careful deliberation about the ongoing challenges that they face. Christians might consider: To what extent has the apostolic witness to Christ been distorted in the tradition to which I belong? Have I engaged other church and religious traditions in hope and love, putting the best construction on the words and actions of others, and seeking to understand how they actually live and believe? The same norm by which Christians evaluate others is the same one that should be used to evaluate themselves and their own tradition. What do the others have that my tradition lacks? What is central for the others but marginal for my own tradition? Recognizing the church in other Christian communities requires a turning point that can be described as a Copernican revolution. We are no longer to regard the other Christian communities as if they move around our Church as the center, just as before Copernicus the planets were understood as revolving around the earth. Instead, we must recognize that together with the other communities, we circle around Christ, like planets circling around the sun, and receive light from him. This turning point in thinking about the church is essential if we are to move forward in ecumenical matters. We are not to compare the others against ourselves, but rather to compare ourselves, together with them, against the apostolic witness to Christ, and only in this way, on the basis of Christ, recognize our own reality as well as that of the unfamiliar.51

Questions for review and discussion 1. How have MacIntyre and Gadamer defined tradition? Why are many traditions contested? Which religious tradition(s), if any, has most influenced you? What roles do community and ritual play in the preservation and transmission of tradition? 2. Based on your understanding of Christianity, what are some Christian traditions that have changed over time? Which traditions have remained central? 3. What is a “Christ?” Who coined the term Christian? 4. Roughly when was Jesus of Nazareth born? Why do scholars think Jesus was born before 4 BC? Roughly when did he die? Do you find it problematic that we do not know for sure when Jesus was born or when he died? 51. Ibid., 2/2.1020.

Traditions of Christianity







5. What were the five main centers of early Christianity? Which city became the center of Western Christianity? Which city became the center of Eastern Christianity? 6. What was one theological factor that led to schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism? 7. What were two reasons most Protestants were critical of the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century? 8. Approximately how many different Christian church groups are in the world today? Do you think this large number of differing groups is a problem or weakness to the presence of Christianity in the world today or do you think it is a strength? 9. Which Christian groups are the largest ones today in the United States? Which countries today have the largest Christian populations? 10. Where is Christianity growing the fastest? Why do you think it is growing fastest there?

Suggestions for further reading Brief introductions to Christianity Jaroslav Pelikan, Kenneth Cragg, A. S. Atiya, Stanley Samuel Arakas, Signey H. Rooy, George Eaton Simpson, Catherine L. Albanese, Adrian Hastings, Stephen C. Neill, Colin Brown, and Charles W. Forman, “Christianity,” ER, 3.348–431. Fritz Stolz, Christoph Markschies, Klaus Koschorke, Peter Neuner, Karl Christian Felmy, Christoph Schwöbel, and E. Glenn Hinson, “Christianity,” RPP, 2.570–602.

Reference works on Christianity General John Bowden, ed. Encyclopedia of Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). [Contains brief articles on the principal topics relating to Christianity.] Erwin Fahlbusch, Jan Milič Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer, eds., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 5 vols, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998–2008). [This is an English translation of the third edition of Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon. It provides useful entries on all aspects of the Christian tradition.] Todd M. Johnson and Gina A Zurlo, eds., World Christian Encyclopedia, 3rd edn (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020). [This very large book is the indispensable scholarly resource for understanding global Christianity. It provides a comparative survey of most Christian church bodies and groups in the world over the past 150 years.]

57

58

Fundamental Theology

Mark A. Lamport, ed., Encyclopedia of Christianity in the Global South, 2 vols (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018). [This work offers a treasure of knowledge and information about Christianity south of the equator. These two volumes demonstrate that the rapid growth of Christianity in the global south is not merely a demographic shift but is transforming the faith itself. Includes helpful maps, images, and a timeline of important events.] Andrew Louth, F. L. Cross, and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 4th edn, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022). [This two-volume work is the standard dictionary of Christianity. Helpful bibliographies accompany each entry.] Gina A. Zurlo, Global Christianity: A Guide to the World’s Largest Religion from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022). [An abridged collection of data from the World Christian Encyclopedia, which provides an accessible entry into global Christian traditions.]

More specialized Everette Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York: Garland, 1990). Hans Hillerbrand, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vols (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). [Standard reference work for Reformation studies.] Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hill, and Craig D. Atwood, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 14th edn (Nashville: Abingdon, 2018). [Standard reference work that contains statistical information on most Christian church groups and denominations in the United States.] Daniel Reid, Robert D. Linder, Bruce L. Shelley, and Harry S. Stout, eds., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990). Scott Sunquist, ed., Dictionary of Asian Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

Christianity among the world religions Roy C. Amore, Amir Hussain, and William G. Oxtoby, A Concise Introduction to World Religions, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). [A helpful introduction to the principal religious traditions in the world.] Robert S. Ellwood and Barbara A. McGraw, Many Peoples, Many Faiths: Women and Men in the World Religions, 11th edn (London: Routledge, 2022). [Standard college textbook in world religions. Provides good overviews of the main religions and has sections on women and politics.] Christopher Partridge and Tim Dowley, eds., Introduction to World Religions, 3rd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018). [Another helpful college textbook on world religions.]

Traditions of Christianity

The history of Christianity Afe Adogame, Roswith Gerloff, and Klaus Hock, eds., Christianity in Africa and the African Diaspora: The Appropriation of a Scattered Heritage (New York: Continuum, 2011). [Provides an extensive analysis of key issues regarding the rapid expansion of Christianity in Africa.] Adrian Hastings, ed., A World History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). [Provides a complimentary perspective on the developments of global Christianity to earlier European-centered accounts.] Elizabeth Isichei, A History of Christianity in Africa: From Antiquity to the Present (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). [An older but still quite useful work about the history of African Christianity.] Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008). [An engaging and insightful, revisionist account of traditional European-centered histories of Christianity. Jenkins stresses Christian developments in Central Asia, India, Armenia, Ethiopia, Nubia, and Persia.] Diarmaid MacCulloch, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (New York: Penguin, 2011). [The single best one-volume historical analysis of the principal traditions of Christianity in the world. A very readable account of very complex developments.] John McManners, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). [An older but still important European-centered account of Christian origins and developments to the late twentieth century.] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971–89). [The last great attempt at writing a synthetic overview of the development of Christian teaching from the apostles through the Second Vatican Council.] Roger P. Schroeder, Christian Tradition in Global Perspective (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2022). [A broad history of Christianity from its earliest days, one that avoids Eurocentric biases as much as possible. Written from a Roman Catholic perspective, this book focuses on themes such as liturgy and the sacraments, church order, social and religious movements.] Brian Stanley, Christianity in the Twentieth Century: A World History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018). [A good overview of the dynamics in Christian history in the past century.]

Histories of specific Christian traditions Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, rev. edn (New York: Doubleday, 2004). [The best one-volume history of the Roman Catholic Church by a Roman Catholic scholar.] Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003). [The single best examination of Western, Latin-speaking traditions of Christianity by a leading scholar in the field.]

59

60

Fundamental Theology

Mark Granquist, Lutherans in America: A New History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). [Provides an excellent overview of the history of the principal Lutheran churches in the United States.] Eric Lund and Mark Granquist, eds., A Documentary History of Lutheranism, 2 vols (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017). [Offers an extensive sampling of key texts in the history of Lutheranism, as well as helpful narrative summaries of important figures and developments in that history.] Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation (New York: Penguin, 2005). [Excellent account of the historical development of Protestant complexity in the Western Catholic Church in the sixteenth century.] Alastair McGrath and Darren Marks, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Protestantism (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004). [Excellent chapters on the history of Protestantism, key Protestant figures, and recent shifts and developments with respect to Global Protestant groups and church bodies.] John McGreevy, Catholicism: A Global History from the French Revolution to Pope Francis (New York: Norton, 2022). [A grand and stunning historical overview of the past 250 years of conflict between “progress” and “tradition” in the Roman Catholic Church, the world’s largest international institution.] Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Profiles in Belief, 4 vols (New York: Harper & Row, 1977–9). [An important, if unfinished summary of the main traditions of Christian belief. Volume one focuses on Roman Catholic and Eastern traditions. Volume two focuses on Protestantism. Volumes three and four focus on Holiness and Pentecostal traditions.] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, rev. edn (New York: Penguin, 1993). [The best one-volume treatment of Eastern Orthodoxy by its most important American interpreter of the past century.]

Creeds and confessions Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. Charles Arand, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, William Russell, James Schaaf, Jane Strohl, and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). [The standard collection of sixteenth-century confessional documents of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church.] Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vols and CD-ROM (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). [Standard reference work in the English language.] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990). [This reference work contains the original texts and English translations of all decrees of the twenty-one councils that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as “ecumenical” (from the first Nicene Council in AD 325 to the Second Vatican Council [1962–5]). Only the first seven of these councils are recognized as truly “ecumenical” by the Eastern Orthodox Church and many Protestant churches.]

Traditions of Christianity

Useful studies about Christianity in the United States Sidney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 2nd edn (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004). [Still the best one-volume historical survey of the history of religions in North America through the end of the twentieth century.] Ryan P. Burge, The Nones (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021). [Provides recent demographic data on the principal Christian traditions in the United States, while analyzing the growth of those who claim no religious affiliation (“the nones”).] Pamela Cooper-White, The Psychology of Christian Nationalism: Why People Are Drawn In, and How to Talk across the Divide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2022). [A superb resource for engaging the topic of Christian nationalism in the United States.] Edwin Gaustad and Philip L. Barlow, New Historical Atlas of Religion in America, 3rd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). [Major reference work for understanding the distribution of Christian traditions and populations within the United States.] Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (New York: Liveright, 2021). [A probing investigation and insightful critique of White Protestant Evangelicalism in the United States.] George Thomas Kurian and Mark A. Lamport, eds., Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, 5 vols (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016). [Standard reference work for Christianity in the United States.] Martin E. Marty, Modern American Religion, 3 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986–96). [Definitive study of religions in the United States between 1896 and 1960. Its analysis by the leading scholar of religion in the United States in the twentieth century provides crucial context for understanding subsequent developments.] Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019). [The best one-volume history of Christianity in North America by a leading evangelical historian.] Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, rev. edn (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012). [A very interesting sociological study of religions, especially Christianity, in contemporary America.]

Online resources for the study of Christianity Cambridge Centre for Christianity Worldwide (https://www.cccw.cam.ac.uk/libr​ary/onl​ ine-resea​rch-resour​ces/) [An excellent entry point for online resources that deal with all aspects of Christianity, its history, and theology.] Duke University (https://gui​des.libr​ary.duke.edu/openr​elig​ion) [Provides open access to religious and theological studies.] Harvard Divinity School (https://libr​ary.hds.harv​ard.edu/key-databa​ses/hist​ory-chris​ tian​ity) [Offers links to many primary and secondary resources in the history of Christianity.]

61

62

Fundamental Theology

The University of Calgary (https://libgui​des.ucalg​ary.ca/relig​ious​stud​iesw​ebgu​ide) [This website provides many resources about world religions, including Christianity.] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (https://chris​tian​ity.web.unc.edu/ resour​ces/#websi​tes) [This website offers a gateway to many online resources about Christianity, including the principal scholarly journals that are devoted to the history and theology of Christianity.] University of Pennsylvania (https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtr​eat/rs/resour​ces.html) [This site offers a wide variety of online scholarly resources for the study of Judaism and Christianity.] Valparaiso University (https://libgui​des.valpo.edu/theol​ogy) [Provides useful links to many online resources for the study of Christianity, its history, and theology.] Yale University (https://gui​des.libr​ary.yale.edu/free​web/databa​ses) [Offers free web access to religion databases and scholarly journals.]

2 Traditions of Christian Theology After briefly examining the origins of theology in ancient Greece and early Judaism, this chapter summarizes some of the major ways Christians have described theology. It introduces several key thinkers in the history of Christianity by how they have defined the nature and task of theology. Special attention is given to important figures from the past century.

Now that we have some idea of the historical and spatial development of Christian traditions in the world, we can turn to look more closely at how Christians have understood the nature and task of theology. How have Christians thought about God? What do Christians think they are doing when they “do theology?” What is the best way to do Christian theology? Before we can answer these questions, however, we need to focus some attention on ancient Greek theology and metaphysics, since Greek ways of thinking influenced the origin of Christian theology. Christians were not the first to think theologically, nor have they remained unaffected by traditions of theology beyond their own circles. Because Christians have more or less always made use of non-Christian, Western philosophical traditions, no description of Christian theology and its task can avoid these other traditions and their impact on Christianity.

Ancient Greek theology Among those traditions, none was more influential than Greek philosophy. As the great nineteenth-century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt (1818–97) said, “We see with the eyes of the Greeks and use their phrases when we speak.”1 Not only did ancient, pre-Christian Greeks first use the word theology (theologia), but they were also among the first to wrestle systematically with questions about the nature of

1. Jacob Burckhardt, The Greeks and Greek Civilization (1872), ed. Oswyn Murray, trans. Sheila Stern (New York: St. Martin’s, 1998), 12.

64

Fundamental Theology

reality as a whole, that is, with what is called metaphysics (ta meta ta physika, literally, “the things after nature”), including the knowledge that arises from reflection on “being” or nature (physis) itself.2 Their ideas about these matters affected early Christian thinkers, and they still influence people today. Greek philosophers, the first “lovers of wisdom,” wondered about “the one and the many,” about the origin and ground of everything, about the divine, about being, about what is good, true, and beautiful. For example, Parmenides (c. 515–445 BC), often called the “father of Western metaphysics,” viewed differences in nature as illusory. According to the fragments of his writings that survive, he learned (from the mouth of an unnamed goddess) that true reality is unchanging, invisible, indivisible, and intelligible. He was thus the first to insist on a distinction between the world as it appears to human beings and reality as it really is. Parmenides’ ideas seem to suggest a kind of monism (“all things are one”), in which “Being” (also called “the All” and “the One”) is identical to “what is.”3 The Greek metaphysical tradition, which explores not only the nature of being but how humans know what they know, also raised critical questions about received religious traditions. Xenophanes (c. 570–c. 480 BC), for example, attacked those who “attributed to the gods everything that is a shame and a reproach among men,” such as stealing, committing adultery, and deceiving one another.4 He maintained that there is “one God, greatest among both gods and men,” who is “in no way similar to mortals either in body or in mind … He always remains in the same place, not moving at all. Nor does it befit him to move about at different times to different places.”5 This “critical” aspect of Greek philosophical theology is perhaps its most important and influential feature. Socrates (469–300 BC), the exemplar of the examined life, raised critical questions about metaphysical matters, for example, what is justice, what is holiness, what is virtue, and so on.6 In view of his critical reasoning about 2. ODCC, 2.1262. Cf. Edward Craig, “Metaphysics,” REP, 567–70. 3. Milton C. Nahm, ed., Selections from Greek Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 87–97 and J. V. Luce, An Introduction to Greek Philosophy (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1992), 50–5. 4. BCPR, 74. 5. Xenophanes of Colophon, Fragments, trans. J. H. Lesher (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), Fragments 11, 23, 26 (trans. modified). 6. See, for example, the depiction of Socrates’ theological questioning in Plato’s early dialogue, “Euthyphro,” in Plato: The Collected Dialogues, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, trans. Lane Cooper (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 169–85. In this dialogue, Socrates questions Euthyphro about the nature of true piety. Euthyphro, a self-confident “theologian” who is about to prosecute his own father on a charge of murder, is incapable of providing Socrates with satisfying answers. In the end, Euthyphro refuses to answer any further questions and abruptly leaves. In the course of the dialogue, which is set in the context of Socrates’ own upcoming trial for “corrupting the youth,” Socrates makes an important distinction, namely, that the good is not good because the gods approve it, but the gods approve it because it is good.

Traditions of Christian Theology

traditional views of religious piety, formal charges were leveled against him for inventing new gods, not believing in the old ones of the city, and corrupting the youth. Tried before a large jury, he was found guilty (by a slim majority) and sentenced to death. He is among the most famous thinkers whose critical theologizing led to serious consequences for his life. Plato (c. 428–347 BC), a student of Socrates, also engaged in theology (theologia) when he criticized the fictional, immoral stories (muthos = “story” or “myth”) about the gods that he deemed inappropriate for society and contrary to the nature of the highest good.7 Most of the theological expressions of the poets, he thought, seemed to be false. Still, he held out the possibility that there could be true speech about “the God” (ho theos). This view is reflected in the words of Socrates in Plato’s Republic: But the claim that God, who is good, is the cause of evil to anyone, we must oppose in every way. We must not allow anyone to make this claim in our city, if it is to be well governed, nor should we let anyone hear it, whether that one is young or old, and whether or not the myth-maker tells his story in verse. These claims, if they are said, would not be holy or beneficial for us nor consistent with one another … This, then, said I, will be one of the laws and patterns about the gods to which speakers and poets will be required to conform, that God is not the cause of all things, but only of the good.8

In the tenth book of his Laws, Plato has “the Athenian Stranger” argue against religious impiety, atheism (the insistence that there is no god at all), and materialism (the belief that the only thing that exists is physical matter). In the Timaeus, Plato’s one strictly cosmological dialogue, Socrates speaks about the highest good in relation to a myth about a demiurgic craftsman who has fashioned the universe into an intelligible, mathematical order. This creation story was particularly influential among later Platonists, such as Plotinus (AD 205–270), who referred to God as “the One beyond Being,” and Proclus (c. 412–485), the last director of Plato’s Academy, who also evaluated (often negatively) Christian theological claims.9 Proclus brought together elements of Platonic thought and other philosophical traditions into a single metaphysical system that he outlined in his 7. See Allan Jay Silverman, The Dialectics of Essence: A Study of Plato’s Metaphysics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002). 8. Plato, The Republic, II.380b, in Plato: The Republic, ed. G. R. F. Ferrari, trans. Tom Griffith, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 66 (trans. modified). 9. While Proclus called Christians “atheists” because they rejected the very existence of the Greek gods, he also acknowledged that their theologians occasionally made true statements that were divinely inspired. A few subsequent Christian theologians made positive use of Proclus’ own form of Neoplatonic religious philosophy to defend Christian teaching. Cf. Henry Chadwick, “Philosophical Tradition and the Self,” in Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, ed. G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 72–3.

65

66

Fundamental Theology

book, Elements of Theology.10 He tried to explain rationally the relation of “one God” to “many gods,” of “one Spirit/Intellect” to “many spirits/intellects,” and of one “Soul” to “many souls.”11 He also wrestled with a basic metaphysical question: “What is the true self?” Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle (384–322 BC), also criticized the ancient stories (muthoi) about the gods, which appeared in writers like Homer (c. 750 BC) and Hesiod (c. 700 BC), that he thought were implausible: The school of Hesiod and all the theologians thought only of what was plausible to themselves, and had no regard for us. For, asserting the first principles to be gods and born of gods, they say that the beings which did not taste of nectar and ambrosia became mortal; and clearly they are using words which are familiar to themselves, yet what they have said about the very application of these causes does not make sense. For if the gods taste of nectar and ambrosia for their pleasure, these are in no way the causes of their existence; and if they taste them to maintain their existence, how can gods who need food be eternal? But into the subtleties of the mythologists it is not worth our while to inquire seriously.12

While Aristotle rejected the anthropomorphisms of Homer and Hesiod, that is, their depictions of the gods in human forms (anthrōpos = “human being”; morphē = “image”), and criticized other implausible elements in the ancient Greek myths, he did not reject theology altogether. In his Metaphysics he developed what he called “a first philosophy” or “the first science” or “the science of being as being” (“ontology,” literally, “thinking about being”), which he also called “theology” (theologia).13 This form of thinking raises questions about the nature of being itself: But if there is something which is eternal and immovable and separable, clearly the knowledge of it belongs to a theoretical science—not however to physics (for physics deals with certain movable things) nor to mathematics, but to a science prior to both … There must, then, be three theoretical philosophies: mathematics, physics, and what we may call theology, since it is obvious that if the divine is present anywhere, it is present in things of this sort. … If there is no substance other than those which are formed by nature, natural science will be the first science; but if there is an immovable substance, the science of this must be prior and must be first philosophy, and universal in this way, because it is the first. And it will belong to this to consider being qua being 10. Proclus, Elements of Theology, 2nd edn, trans. Thomas Taylor (Wiltshire, England: Prometheus Trust, 2019). 11. Cf. Proclus, Elements of Theology, 2–4, 13–14, 36–9, 60–121. 12. Aristotle, Metaphysics, III.4.1000a.8, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon, trans. W. D. Ross (New York: Random House, 1941), 725–6 (trans. modified). 13. Ibid., IV.1.1003a.17, IV.2.1004a.2, and VI.1.1025b.1–1026b.5, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, 731, 733, and 778–9.

Traditions of Christian Theology

[being as being]—both what it is and the attributes which belong to it qua being [as being].14

Aristotle thus furthered the view that one ultimate God is the basis for order (cosmos) in the universe, the “unmoved mover” who affects the world by drawing all things toward “itself.” (Aristotle’s “God” is an absolute but completely impersonal power.) In this view, God is both “an impelling force within the universe” and “an object of desire” that draws human beings beyond the universe toward God.15 By the end of the second century BC in the Roman world, theology had been divided into three branches: (1) mythological theology, which maintained and interpreted the stories about the gods from ancient Greece or other known cultures; (2) natural theology (rational or philosophical theology), which reasoned about God or the gods on the basis of study and reflection on the world or universe (and was often critical of the ancient myths as fictional and immoral); and (3) civil theology, which served to understand and perform the rites and ceremonies in the cult of the Caesars (and often to justify whatever political regime was ruling at the time). This threefold way of understanding theology was first set forth by the Stoic philosopher Panaetius of Rhodes (c. 185–110 BC). Some Christian thinkers, such as Tertullian (c. 160–c. 225) and Augustine of Hippo, later used this same threefold distinction in their own writings. The rest of the trajectory of Western, Greek-based metaphysics need not be traced here. Suffice it to say that over the past millennium many Western thinkers have increasingly argued against the very possibility of metaphysics and philosophical theology. In so doing they have furthered the critical aspect of theologia toward the ancient stories or myths, but they have also rejected the positive aspect of the metaphysical enterprise as understood by Plato and Aristotle. Nevertheless, despite the serious criticisms that have been leveled against the plausibility of philosophical theology, certain of the basic metaphysical questions that first arose with those ancient Greeks still surface today: Is there proof or solid evidence for the reality of God? Is there proof or solid evidence for the non-reality of God? Are religious beliefs in general rational? How are we to understand the ancient religious stories and myths? How does God act within the world? How should one understand the so-called problem of evil? Is there life after death?

14. Ibid., VI.1.1026a.10–33, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, 779 (emphasis added). 15. Ibid., XII.7.1072a.21–9, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, 879–80.

67

68

Fundamental Theology

It is fascinating to note that each of the principal religious traditions in the world has had to engage these and other philosophical questions, too, both as they relate to their own religious tradition and as they overlap with other broad areas of human knowing, such as epistemology (how do we know what we know), ethics, the philosophy of language, anthropology, the human sciences, history, and the natural sciences.16 Even if definitive answers to these questions are elusive or unattainable, their persistence in every religion and culture suggests that they are somehow important to human life. The long tradition of Western philosophical theology, which began with the Greeks, was furthered by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers in later centuries, who examined metaphysical issues within the context of their respective religious traditions. Going beyond strictly metaphysical questions, they asked about the truth and meaning of ultimate reality, and about the meaning of that ultimate reality in relation to human beings. Many of these later thinkers argued for the notion that theology is possible not simply because of human curiosity or inquiry, but only because of an initiating address from God or ultimate reality, which then gives rise to theological reflection. In other words, theology arises from God’s own speaking and/or revelation.

Ancient Jewish theology Not only did Greek philosophical theology and metaphysics have an influence on the development of early Christian theology, so too did ancient Jewish theology. As previously noted, the term theologia was not used by the ancient Israelites or early Jews, probably because of its association with pagan Greek philosophy and polytheistic religions. Nevertheless, in the period after the Babylonian destruction of the Jerusalem temple (586 BC) and the rise of the Greek empire of Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC), Jewish scholars who lived in the Mediterranean world thought and spoke (many in Greek) about God (theos) on the basis of their religious texts and traditions, and these reflections profoundly affected the future course of Christian reflection on God, the world, and human beings. Jesus, his first disciples, and the initial apostles (including Paul) were all born and raised as Jews, and their ideas, attitudes, and actions, as well as those of later Christian thinkers, were deeply influenced by this earlier Jewish theology. While the term theologia does not appear in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint), those sacred writings refer to God (theos) and the word 16. A helpful introduction to these and other metaphysical problems, as analyzed within philosophy, is the little book by Earl Conee and Theodore Sider, Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

Traditions of Christian Theology

(logos) of God, and they contain a rich and complicated set of theological teachings. On the basis of these biblical writings and their interpretation by authoritative rabbis (“teachers”), the earliest traditions of Jewish theology began to develop. Central to this broad stream of living tradition is the history of rabbinic debates about the meanings and applications of the biblical texts, especially the first five books of the  Hebrew Bible (the Pentateuch, also called collectively the Law of Moses), and the interpretation of those texts in the life of Jewish synagogues (“meeting places”).17 First considered here is the rise of Jewish theology in the intertestamental period (c. 165 BC–c. AD 50), the time between Daniel, the last-written book that is part of the OT canon (though it does not appear last in the standard arrangement of OT books), and the first writings of the NT, since those reflections had a significant influence on the future course of Christian theology. From the Jews, Christians inherited a core group of sacred texts (although they have been interpreted differently by Jews and Christians), as well as several basic theological teachings. Chief among these Jewish ideas was the belief in one God, the sole Creator of the universe, the Lord of all peoples and nations, who is called “king,” “the Father,” “the Holy One,” the “Almighty,” and other important names. As one scholar says, “Belief that their God was the only true God, that he had chosen them and had given them his law, and that they were required to obey it are basic to Jewish theology, and they are found in all the sources.”18 Only this God is to be worshiped, adored, and prayed to, as legislated in the law of Moses. The First Commandment in this legal corpus reads: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20.2-3). Needless to say, idolatry—worship of any other god or gods—is to be strictly avoided. Moreover, in keeping with the Second Commandment (“Do not misuse the name of the LORD” [Exod. 20.7]), God’s proper name (YHWH in Hebrew) is not to be pronounced. Instead, Jews substitute the Hebrew word for LORD whenever they come across the divine name in their Scriptures. In keeping with these first two commandments, the Shema (Hebrew: “Hear you …”) is to be recited twice daily: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD alone” (Deut. 6.4). According to the teaching of Jesus, this injunction is affirmed as the “Great Commandment,” which, together with the 17. Scholars are divided with respect to the historicity of Moses. While a few historians dismiss “the quest for the historical Moses as a futile exercise” (J. van Seters, as quoted in ABD, 4.910), others (e.g., Brevard Childs, Walter Eichrodt) conclude that the historical figure of Moses was indeed the founder of Israel’s faith, that the events of the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai “require a great personality behind them” (Childs, as quoted in ABD, 4.911), and that the historic Moses can thus be tied to those founding events. While scholars are also divided with respect to the historicity of the Exodus event, those who accept it as having taken place essentially along the lines of the biblical accounts date it within the thirteenth century BC (see ABD, 2.702). 18. E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM, 1993), 241.

69

70

Fundamental Theology

command to love one’s neighbor, epitomizes the law of Moses (cf. Lev. 19.18; Mk 12.28-34 and par.). The more monotheism (the belief that there is only one true God) and God’s transcendence were emphasized, the more Israel’s God became universal and not simply their “own” deity. God was understood to be the one Creator of all there is. The theology implied in the Shema and the first two commandments led to the further view that God is in control of world history. This theological development took place in tandem with intellectual efforts to protect the name of God (as given in the Jewish Scriptures) from being misused and profaned, and to interpret the anthropomorphic statements about God in those Scriptures (e.g., that in Genesis God “walks” in the Garden of Eden; that God has a ”right arm”) in such a way as to maintain God’s infinite transcendence and qualitative difference from God’s creation. The most important early Jewish theologian to have struggled against anthropomorphism was Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC–c. AD 50).19 He not only knew the Hebrew Scriptures, but he was also conversant with Greek philosophical traditions of metaphysics. While he devoted considerable attention to the interpretation of the Septuagint (and to developing sophisticated methods for fulfilling such expositions), he was a supporter of Hellenistic culture, and he sought to show how biblical teaching could be reconciled with reigning Greek philosophical ideas (particularly those found in the influential philosophy of Stoicism). For example, Philo’s teaching about “the Logos of God” united both the Jewish biblical teaching about the word of God and the Platonic teaching about the Logos. Related to Jewish monotheism is the belief that God elected or chose Israel to be his covenantal people. God is thus personal and relational, a divine Subject who addresses individuals through his word and does mighty acts in the lives and history of his chosen people. God’s election of Israel is grounded in the call of Abram (Gen. 12.1-3)—who is later named “Abraham” by God (Gen. 17.5)—and the covenant (“agreement”) God made with him and his descendants, which forms the basis for God’s further act of delivering Abraham’s descendants, the ancient Israelites, from their slavery in Egypt. The Exodus from Egypt provides the theological foundation for the giving of the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 20). Each of the covenants that God made in the past (with Noah, Abram, Jacob, the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai, King David) were initiated by God, grounded in his divine loving-kindness and mercy. In response, the liberated people of the covenant were to live in faithful obedience to God’s law. Indeed, the law has been understood to be a further revelation of God’s love for the people of his covenant. Other Jewish ideas from this same intertestamental period also influenced the NT Scriptures and subsequent early Christian theology. One crucial idea was that of 19. See Philo, The Works of Philo, new ed., trans. C. D. Yonge, foreword David M. Scholer (Nashville: Hendrickson, 1993), xi–xx; cf. ABD, 5.333–42.

Traditions of Christian Theology

the Messiah, the new “anointed one” of God who many believed would rescue and restore the Jewish people. In the period between the two testaments, Jewish groups argued among themselves about the nature and character of the Jewish Messiah. The Sadducees, a group of priestly aristocrats, whose central focus was the Jerusalem temple, did not expect such a figure in the future. They limited themselves strictly to the written law of Moses, which in their view does not refer to such a future person. The Pharisees (“the separated ones”), however, expected a future figure who would act militarily in a manner like the ancient Israelite King David, while the Essenes, yet another Jewish group from the intertestamental period, seem to have been expecting two Messiahs, one who would act as David did, and another who would serve as the ultimate high priest in a renewed temple. (It is worth noting, too, that the Sadducees and Pharisees disagreed with one another about several other theological ideas. For example, the Pharisees taught that the dead would be resurrected, while the Sadducees did not.) After the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, the Sadducees disintegrated as a party. The further course of rabbinic Judaism would be significantly shaped by the Pharisees. Indeed, the Talmudic writings—consisting of commentaries and debates about Scripture, tradition, and ethics—which remain authoritative for contemporary Judaism, are the products of the Pharisaic tradition.20 Still other Jewish theological developments in the intertestamental period had an influence on subsequent Christian theology. For example, some Jews developed a growing interest in supposed intermediary beings between God and creation, that is, angels and demons (fallen angels). Such Jewish scholars held that since these beings receive their existence from the one God, whose power continues to sustain them, they have no independent existence of their own. Even the demonic angels were originally created good, and their created goodness remains even in their fallen condition. A final Jewish idea from this period that also influenced early Christian thought was the belief in a future new age, an idea in keeping with the conviction that God is in control of the world’s historical events. Many Jews from this period, especially the Essenes, believed that the age they were living in (the old creation) would be completely replaced by a new age (the new creation). This present world was viewed very negatively. Its very existence was held to be corrupted and undergoing decay, while the age to come would be an age of justice and perfect peace (Shalom). In this intertestamental period, especially after the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (when the cultic-sacrificial system came to an end), the Jewish synagogue grew in importance as a place for prayer, scriptural interpretation, theological learning, and discussion. The focus here was on the law of Moses, whose authoritative interpretation

20. Cf. Barry W. Holtz, ed., Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 129–75.

71

72

Fundamental Theology

by key rabbis helped to guide all aspects of Jewish life and community.21 The law was thought to be eternal, always in the mind of God and preexistent in the same way that later Christian theologians taught that the Logos in Jesus was preexistent. As we will see, the earliest Christian theology, which is contained in the NT writings, emerged in the context of debates and conflicts within first-century Palestinian Judaism. These disagreements were largely about the Christian claim that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, but they also had to do with Jesus’ and Paul’s criticisms of the Mosaic law and other theological matters that divided these first-century Jews from one another.

Early and medieval Christian theology While the Greek words that form the term theology (theologia) appear in the NT (logia tou theou, Rom. 3.2; logia theou, 1 Pet. 4.11; logion tou theou, Heb. 5.12), the unified term itself does not occur. “Theology” itself was actually understood negatively by the earliest Jewish Christians because it had traditionally been associated with pagan religions and philosophical criticism of the Greek myths. Thus, the disdained word theologia was not used by Christians to refer to what they did when they spoke or thought of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Prior to the third century, Christians described their way of thinking about God as devotion to “sacred Scripture” or “divine knowledge” or “divine wisdom” (inclusive of both the OT and the NT).22 Later, in the medieval West, Thomas Aquinas (1224/5–1274) gave currency to the expression “sacred teaching” (sacra doctrina), which he also called “the science of God.”23 The first Christian thinker to use the term theology favorably to describe the knowledge of God revealed in the history of ancient Israel and Jesus was likely Clement (c. 150–c. 215), an early church leader, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and later in Palestine. He spoke of the “theology of the ever-living Word” (Logos) that is taught by the theologian.24 For Clement and his most important student, Origen (c. 21. For a helpful overview of the development of rabbinic Judaism, see the third through fifth chapters in The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Theology, 41–101. 22. For representative instances of these expressions in the writings of early Christian theologians, see ANF, 1.29–30, 508; 2.492–493, 509, 558; 7.96; and 8.613. 23. Aquinas, ST, I.1.2–8. Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (“Summary of Theology”) between 1266 and 1273. The purpose of this work, which remained unfinished at his death, was to provide a systematic summary of the Catholic faith for students of theology. Two years before he died, he received a mystical vision while celebrating Mass. As a result of that experience, he stopped writing. When a companion urged him to return to his great work, he is supposed to have replied, “I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me” (Aquinas, as quoted in Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993], 9). 24. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata [Miscellanies], I.13 (ANF, 2.313).

Traditions of Christian Theology

185–c. 254), all of the biblical writers, especially the prophets and the apostles, were theologians who bore witness to the divine Logos or “Word” in Jesus. Others could also be called theologians, in a derived sense, if they believed in the divine Word, were apt to teach the mysteries of the faith to others, and were equipped by the Spirit of God to defend the truth of Christian wisdom and to refute error. While some of Origen’s teachings were condemned by later Christians more than a century after his death, during his lifetime he tried to reconcile Hellenistic learning, especially the ideas of Platonism, and Christian biblical teaching. He and other Eastern Greek-speaking Christians understood the God revealed in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures to be identical to the Intelligible One who transcends the material, sensible world and who alone can be truly known. While faith in God is grounded in scriptural authority, the individual Christian is called to love and know God above all things in this earthly life and to long for the vision of God that will be more complete in the life to come after death. Origen wrote hundreds of Bible commentaries, sermons, and other theological works, but his greatest theological work, On Divine Principles, which survives only in unreliable forms, systematically examines God and heavenly beings, human beings and the material world, human freedom and its consequences in human life, and the Holy Scriptures of the OT and NT. Following a method of reading and interpreting the Bible that was developed by Philo of Alexandria, Origen contended that biblical verses typically have three levels of meaning: (1) the literal meaning, which is the sense that the words and sentences have on the surface; (2) the moral meaning, which is the ethical teaching of the verses; and (3) the allegorical meaning, which is the spiritual and mystical meaning that leads the Christian thinker to ascend beyond the visible world to the contemplation of the divine Word who dwells eternally with God. For Origen, this latter figurative meaning is the most important. It was this “deeper,” “spiritual” meaning that allowed him to fit the biblical texts more closely with truths discovered through philosophical reasoning. With Origen one finds for the first time in the history of Christian doctrine a complete theological system that is linked to the reigning philosophical understandings of his day. For him, true philosophy and true theology form a single whole. For this reason, too, he coveted dialogue with Jews and non-Christian philosophers, since they also might have something to contribute to divine and human understanding. Clement and Origen were not alone in their work of defending the truth and wisdom of Christian theology and of demonstrating its continuity with important aspects of Greek philosophy. Half a century earlier Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165), who was perhaps the most significant of the second-century “apologists,” strove to defend (Greek: apologia = “defense”) Christian teaching and practices over against those who were critical of Christianity and who persecuted Christians. Justin’s two apologetic treatises maintain that “seeds” or elements of Christian truth can be found among the writings of non-Christian pagans (e.g., Socrates, Plato) who taught or wrote long

73

74

Fundamental Theology

before the coming of Jesus.25 Whatever is true in those sources has an important continuity with Christian truth. Indeed, according to Justin, these earlier, limited truths prepared the way for the fullest manifestation of truth, which has occurred in God’s final revelation of the Word that became incarnate in Jesus. As a theologian, Justin desired to highlight these important continuities and thus to see God at work even in the ideas of pagan philosophers. But not every Christian apologist of the second century looked favorably upon Greek philosophy or secular learning. Some, like Tertullian, who converted to the Christian religion around AD 197, argued that the revelation of God given in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures has nothing in common with the “god” of the Greek, pagan philosophers. For Tertullian Christian theology is entirely a matter of faithful understanding of the sacred Scriptures and strict, moral obedience to God. It is interesting to note that Tertullian, like Origen, was also condemned as a false teacher. This occurred after he had joined a group of Christians known for their strict and rigorous morality and their concentration on new prophecies of the Holy Spirit. While Tertullian himself was a highly educated Latin rhetorician and essayist, his conservative form of theology was ultimately anti-philosophical and anti-cultural. In the aftermath of Origen’s phenomenal work, the verb theologein (“to theologize”) was used by Greek Christians to ascribe a divine nature to the person of Jesus Christ and to think of him in relation to the divine being of God. Christian thinkers in these early centuries did not always agree with one another about how best to understand the being of God in relation to the person of Christ or even how best to understand the scriptural witness to the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. For example, some theologians, influenced by Neoplatonism, stressed that, because God is the Creator, ground, and goal of all being, God must transcend all creaturely categories, including the category of “being.”26 In this apophatic or “negative” tradition of theology, God is said to be “beyond being” and unity and so incapable of being described in any positive language.27 Other theologians, such as Irenaeus, 25. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 46 (ANF, 1.178); Justin Martyr, Second Apology, 8 (ANF, 1.191). 26. See, for example, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata [Miscellanies], 11–12 (ANF, 2.460–4). Neoplatonism was the final flowering of ancient Greek philosophy in the third century through the sixth century AD. Among the thinkers who had an influence on Christian theology we may again mention Plotinus and Proclus. Within the context of Christian Neoplatonism, this type of theology can be described as an “anagogical” or “uplifting” method of theological analysis by which terms and concepts for God offer a point of comparison that becomes “enhanced” or “intensified” in relation to thinking about God. Ultimately, however, the terms are transcended and surpassed in the ascent from what is perceived to what is known and, finally, to what is “unknown.” As the theologian “climbs higher,” the “way of negation” denies and moves beyond all human concepts and attributes for God. This tradition of apophatic or “negative” theology denies that any of our concepts can be affirmed of God. Cf. ODCC, 1.101–2. 27. See especially Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 500), The Complete Works, ed. Paul Rorem, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist, 1987), 53 et passim. “Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what he is not,

Traditions of Christian Theology

stressed that God’s eternal identity unfolds historically through the revealing acts of God in history that culminated in the incarnation of the Word (the Logos) and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. According to Irenaeus, the actions of the incarnate Word transform human history itself and redeem humankind. It is thus proper to describe and interpret the nature and character of God. Despite these differences in emphasis and focus, all major Christian theologians in these early centuries wrestled with the problem of how best to understand the relationship between God’s oikonomia (“the economy or plan of God for human salvation”) and God’s theologia (“the essence or nature of God,” as understood by human beings). God’s oikonomia addresses the incarnation of the Word (see Jn 1.14), the church, and the sacraments, while God’s theologia involves metaphysical reflection upon “the account of God, or the record of God’s ways, as given in the Bible.”28 Later, both Eastern Greek and Western Latin Christians began to use the word theology to refer simply to the Scriptures themselves, while also maintaining the belief that the best form of theology is prayer, since only through prayer can God be known most fully. Not surprisingly, most Christian theologians in the first six hundred years of Christianity were actively involved in the worship and everyday life of the church as bishops. During these early centuries of Christianity, the “correct prayer and praise” (“orthodoxy”) of God led many to reflect more deeply upon the object of faith, especially when they were confronted with teaching, praying, and preaching that they considered to be false or heretical. Theological reflection also occurred when bishops had to address the problem of apostasy in times of persecution. For example, the most influential North African bishop in the third century, Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258), wrote several theological treatises in which he defended the notion that there is only one catholic and orthodox church and that those who purposely sever their ties with that church are guilty of “schism” (splitting the church into pieces), an offense that is just as bad as heresy (false teaching). In Cyprian’s view, anyone who breaks away from the church can no longer receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation. He thus criticized those Christian bishops who had committed apostasy (“falling

we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how he is not” (Aquinas, ST, I.3). In the same negative or apophatic vein, Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–1327) distinguished between our inherently limited language for God and the absolute ineffability and hiddenness of God: “I say that whoever perceives something in God and attaches thereby some name to him, that is not God. God is above names and above nature … Yet those names are permitted to us by which the saints have called him and which God so consecrated with divine light and poured into all their hearts” (Meister Eckhart, “Sermon 53,” in Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense, ed. and trans. Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn [New York: Paulist, 1981], 204). 28. OED, 2040. Cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 329, 332.

75

76

Fundamental Theology

away”) through their renunciation of Christ and his church in a time of persecution, even if they did not promote doctrinal errors. While Cyprian seems to have recognized that lapsed bishops could repent later of their sinful actions, receive the forgiveness of Christ, and thus be restored to their office as bishop, other Christians in North Africa at the time argued that such “traitors” (those who had “handed over” Christian Scriptures to be burned by the pagan Romans) were incapable of ever being bishops again, and that their sacramental actions were invalid. That controversy between the Donatists (who took the more rigorous line against the traitorous bishops) and the Catholics, as they came to be known, was not resolved until nearly a century later through the argumentation of Augustine of Hippo, who defended the notion that the validity of the sacraments depends solely on the divine word and not on the moral character or behavior of the priest administering them (even if that behavior was terrible). Nevertheless, Donatist traditions continued to rub against Catholic ones, and members of the two groups sometimes took violent actions against each other. Over time, some expressions of faith and interpretations of Scripture, even ones that had been popular in earlier centuries, were eventually deemed by bishops and church councils to be contrary to essential aspects of the object of faith. For example, Donatism was eventually deemed a heresy, since it made the validity of the church’s sacraments depend upon the moral character of the priest and bishop rather than on the power and efficacy of the divine word itself. As other heresies were condemned, more orthodox ways of understanding God and Christ took hold. For example, as we noted in the first chapter, orthodox Christians confessed the Logos of God to be “of the same being” as the Father, not of “like being” or “different being.” Similarly, the two natures in the one person of Christ were understood to be distinct yet somehow to share a personal union. With the gradual clarification of orthodox teaching, there developed “the beginnings of a reflection on faith and in faith or, in other words, something of a theology.”29 The most important figures in this development of orthodoxy are usually called the principal doctors of the church. Among them are Athanasius (d. 373), Basil of Caesarea (d. 379), Gregory of Nazianzus (d. c. 390), Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 394), Chrysostom (d. 407), and Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), in the East; and Hilary (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 419), Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), and Pope Leo I (d. 461), in the West.30 29. Yves Congar, “Theology: Christian Theology,” ER, 14.456. 30. For an introduction to those who are recognized by the Roman Catholic Church to be preeminent theologians or doctors of the church, see Bernard McGinn, The Doctors of the Church: Thirty-Three Men and Women Who Shaped Christianity, rev. edn (New York: Crossroad, 2010). Basil, his brother (Gregory of Nyssa), their sister (Macrina), who was an excellent theologian in her own right, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus, are sometimes also called collectively “the Cappadocians,” since they lived in that region of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey).

Traditions of Christian Theology

While it is inaccurate to think that Eastern traditions of Christian theology have been without innovation—since those traditions were indeed defined partly through novel theological formulations and by subtly varying and adapting liturgies (forms of worship) and prayers—one can state as a generalization, and without too many qualifications, that Greek, Syriac, and Ethiopian traditions have been more resistant to theological change than Western theological traditions. These Eastern forms of theology have tended to reject weighty rationalizing within theology in favor of mystical and monastic devotional concentration upon the incarnation of the Word (about which Eastern theologians had often disagreed), the holy Trinity, and the divinization of human beings. While the most important Greek Orthodox theologian, John of Damascus (c. 660–c. 750), occasionally generated creative theological insights, he too merely wanted to set forth an exact reproduction of the Orthodox faith as it had been handed down in the Divine Liturgy. His work represents the first attempt to compile a collection of clear statements by orthodox teachers into one volume. His book organizes the theological topics in an ordering that moves from God and the Trinity through creation and the two natures of Christ and on to the post-resurrection ministry of the glorified Christ. The most important theologian in the Western catholic tradition has been Augustine of Hippo (354–430) who, like many of the earliest Greek theologians, sought to reconcile the best in Platonic philosophy with the central teachings of Christianity. To be sure, Augustine came to recognize the limitations of some Platonic claims (such as the notion that if one rightly knows “the good” one can do it) and the usefulness of secular knowledge, but he nevertheless yearned to find congruences between his Christian faith and the abiding truths in Platonic philosophy and secular learning. True thinking and speaking about God, he believed, were most truthfully set forth within the Holy Scriptures as taught by the Catholic Church. Once one recognized this, one could use Platonic philosophy to articulate and defend the truths of Catholic teaching. Augustine himself did so in biblical commentaries, letters, and treatises that became standard resources for medieval theology for well over a millennium. One of his most important works to define the nature of theology is On Christian Doctrine, which helps the beginning student to know how best to interpret the Scriptures, mine them for theological truths, and communicate them faithfully and winsomely.31 For Augustine, theology is both introspective, since it leads one to discover the presence of God within one’s soul, and biblical, since it directs the soul to contemplate the God who is revealed through the Scriptures. The goal of theology is to lead “restless” individuals to find their ultimate “rest” in God. Augustine himself wrote about his own conversion to the Catholic faith in his Confessions, a long prayer that recounts many experiences through which, in retrospect, God had led him back to 31. Augustine, Teaching Christianity (WSA, I/11).

77

78

Fundamental Theology

God.32 In Augustine’s view, a theologian is called to assist other human beings in their similar pilgrimage back to God, to help them find their eternal satisfaction in God. In this regard, the special role of a bishop—the “overseer” of Christian souls in his care—is to interpret Scripture rightly and learnedly for the sake of the faithful. Such a leader must pay careful attention to the clarification of the ambiguities and apparent problems in the biblical texts, often by means of figurative and allegorical (“spiritual”) interpretation, as Philo and Origin and Augustine’s own bishop, Ambrose, had done as well. As we will see, Augustine’s focus on interiority, on God and the soul, would become a hallmark of later forms of Christian theology, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. One of the most creative Christian thinkers lived in a period that some have called “the Dark Ages,” a designation that does not fit early medieval Ireland at that time or later. John Scotus Eriugena (c. 810–877) was an Irish-born scholar who taught on the European continent in a royal setting (at the behest of Charles the Bald [d. 877]). Like Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius (whose work he translated from Greek into Latin), Eriugena made use of Neoplatonic philosophy to make theological sense of Christian teaching. In his view, church authority has no control over human reasoning. Indeed, according to Eriugena, humans can attain for themselves the knowledge of God in which theology and philosophy are unified. The theologian achieves that unity by embracing and transforming theology through philosophical reflection. His greatest work, Periphyseon or De Divisione Naturae (On the Division of Nature), sets forth a fourfold understanding of “nature”: nature creating and uncreated; creating and created; created, not creating; and finally, neither created nor creating.33 The uncreated Creator is God, but he is also, in another sense, neither created nor creating, since Neoplatonic philosophy teaches that all things that are created through the Word will ultimately return to God, and these things have an eternal existence in the mind of God. Between AD 700 and the late medieval period (fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), other figures beyond Eriugena helped to develop what would come to be called “scholastic theology.” In these centuries most Christian theologians (but not Eriugena) were monks and nuns who lived in monastic communities. For them theology was primarily contemplative as they prayed and thought and worked—and prayed again. One of the most influential theologians in this period was Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109), a monk who became an archbishop. He helped to develop this new way of doing theology, which is sometimes also called “scholasticism.” It is 32. Augustine, Confessions (WSA, I/1, 2nd edn). The opening paragraph of this prayer to God ends with the sentence: “You stir us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you” (WSA, I/1.39). 33. John the Scot, Periphyseon: On the Division of Nature, trans. Myra L. Uhlfelder (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011). For Eriugena’s context, see McNeill, The Celtic Churches, 177–92.

Traditions of Christian Theology

a highly intellectual, philosophical form of theology that shares important affinities with earlier Greek philosophical theology and also with Eriugena’s way of thinking theologically. Instead of merely quoting from Scripture or ancient Christian doctors of the church, as some early theologians had done, Anselm preferred to defend the truth of Christian faith by means of intellectual reasoning apart from appeals to the authority of Scripture.34 For example, he thought he could rationally demonstrate the reality of God apart from such an appeal. While he understood faith to be the crucial presupposition for right thinking about God and divine matters, a position that had earlier been set forth by Augustine and others, he also thought that theology includes the responsibility to use one’s mind as best one could to comprehend the truths of God’s revelation. Anselm thus stated, “I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand” (credo ut intelligam).35 But it should be noted that he also maintained that our critical faculties should be used in service to that faith. Here the motto was “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum), an approach also consistent with that of Augustine, who devised a similar formula: “Do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand.”36 This same idea is expressed in the Septuagint version of the prophet Isaiah 7:9: “Unless you believe, you shall not understand.” If there is a difference between Augustine’s and Anselm’s respective understandings of theology, it is that Anselm thought human reason itself is fully capable of discovering on its own the rational coherence of the truth of the faith, apart from any appeal to divine revelation or the Scriptures, “as if nothing had ever been known of Christ.”37 Augustine, on the other hand, stressed the mutual interaction of faith and understanding in the interpretation of the Scriptures for the sake of true knowledge of God. Another medieval monk, Peter Abelard (1079–1142/3), understood theology in a way similar to Anselm, that is, as an orderly discipline of critical reflection on the revealed truths of the Christian faith. He hoped that by questioning the content of that faith he could set forth for himself and others a deeper and more complete understanding of it. One immediately detects here continuity with the ancient Greek practice of criticizing the traditional “myths” in search of philosophical truth, but 34. Anselm of Canterbury, “Preface,” Monologium (1078), in St. Anselm: Basic Writings, 2nd edn, trans. S. N. Deane (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1962), 81. 35. Anselm, Proslogium (1079), 1, in St. Anselm: Basic Writings, 53. 36. Augustine, Homily 29 (Jn 7.14-18), (WSA, III/12.493 [trans. modified]). See also Augustine, Sermon 43 (2 Pet. 1.17-18, but with significant attention to Isa. 7.9), where the final sentence reads: “Understand, that you may believe my word; believe, that you may understand the word of God” (512; WSA, III/2.243 [trans. modified]). This sentence is often shortened to the motto, “Understand that you may believe; believe that you may understand.” 37. Anselm, “Preface,” Cur Deus Homo [Why God Became a Human Being] (1098), in St. Anselm: Basic Writings, 191.

79

80

Fundamental Theology

also continuity with Origen’s practice of looking for deeper, spiritual truths beneath the literal statements in the Bible. Abelard was particularly concerned about resolving the apparent contradictions both in sacred Scripture and in the doctrinal traditions of the Western Church. To do this he developed a dialectical approach of “yes” and “no” (sic et non) that both affirmed and negated these seemingly contradictory statements in order to bring about a more satisfactory intellectual resolution.38 Another major medieval effort at organizing Christian doctrine systematically was undertaken by Peter Lombard (1100–60). His Sentences, which is largely a compilation of statements by earlier theologians, was divided into four books that treat the following topics: God, creation and sin; the incarnation and redemption; the sacraments and “the last things.”39 In true scholastic fashion, Lombard aimed to summarize the doctrine taught by the Western Catholic Church, support it by quotations from the Scriptures, quote the various opinions of the church fathers and, if they seemed to contradict one another, reconcile them. Yet another form of theology that developed in this medieval period resulted from reflection on mystical experience, that is, some kind of direct, personal encounter with God. Both men and women engaged in such “mystical theology.” We will focus here on only two mystics, both of them women: Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) and Julian of Norwich (c. 1342–c. 1416). Hildegard was an abbess (female head of a monastery) who claimed to have received spiritual revelations from God that she then interpreted as instructions from the Spirit to know “the ways of the Lord.”40 Her devotion to spiritual singing led her to use music as a way of conveying theological truth and wisdom. Much of her writing, like that of other medieval mystics, is metaphorical and highly symbolic. Julian of Norwich, who was an English anchorite (she lived her later life almost entirely secluded in a small hut), wrote about the revelations or “showings” of Christ that she received while she was gravely ill and on the point of death.41 These visions and her subsequent reflections upon them led her to a profound understanding of the nature of Christ’s incarnation as the manifestation of God’s love for the world. This understanding led her to speak of God and Christ in feminine terms, for example, of Christ as “our precious Mother Jesus,” who nourishes her child, the church.42 Julian’s understanding of Christ contrasted 38. Peter Abelard, Yes and No: Peter Abelard’s Sic et Non (1121–6), 3rd edn, trans. Priscilla Throop (Charlotte, VT: MedievalMS, 2008). 39. Peter Lombard, The Sentences (1150s), 4 vols, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–10). 40. Hildegard of Bingen, The Ways of the Lord (1142–51), ed. Emilie Griffin, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005). 41. Julian of Norwich, Showings (1373), trans. Edmund Colledge (New York: Paulist, 1978). 42. Ibid., 298. Her insistence on referring to God and Jesus as “Mother” was not innovative. Biblical, patristic, and earlier medieval sources include such references and parallels.

Traditions of Christian Theology

with the masculine and martial images of God that male theologians typically used at the time. Both Hildegard and Julian remind us of the imaginative, creative, and emotional dimensions of Christian theology. Their work and that of other women in the Christian tradition raise the question as to whether women “do theology” differently from men—perhaps with a greater focus on personal experience. Before he himself received a mystical vision that apparently led him to quit writing theology altogether, Thomas Aquinas brought the scholastic form of theology to its pinnacle. For him, theology or “sacred teaching” is about God and everything else in relation to God. According to Aquinas, “In sacred doctrine all things are treated under the aspect of God, either because they are God himself, or because they are ordered to God as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that God is truly the subject of this science.”43 While Christian theology indeed treats all things “under the aspect of God,” he claimed, it “does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily; and of creatures only so far as they refer to God as their beginning or end.”44 In contrast to other scholarly disciplines, whose sole basis is human reasoning about human sensing, Aquinas believed that Christian theology proceeds on the basis of “principles made known by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed.”45 In other words, God’s own self-revelation is the starting point of “sacred science,” which for Aquinas included what today is narrowly meant by “Christian doctrine” as well as all other learning. Thus, in a way different from other scholarly disciplines that do not study things in relation to God as their beginning and end, sacred science constantly examines the light that God’s self-revelation sheds on all created things in their relation to God as their origin and goal. The purpose of such study is the supreme one of making human beings “wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3.15 [RSV]), whereas all other scholarly disciplines tend to focus merely on knowledge of and for this world. While divine revelation provides the starting point of Christian theology, Aquinas thought theologians are able to use their God-given reason to seek insight and rigorous argumentation to disclose the unity and truth of sacred doctrine. For him, as well as for Bonaventure (c. 1217–1274), his Franciscan colleague at the University of Paris, the aim of academic theology is thus to develop a synthesis of reason and faith.46 In this view, the revealed truths of 43. Aquinas, ST, I.1.7. 44. Ibid., I.1.3. 45. Ibid., I.1.2. 46. Cf. Bonaventure, Breviloquium (1257), ed. Dominic V. Monti, vol. 9 of the Works of St. Bonaventure, ed. Robert J. Karris (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 2005). Aquinas treated many more topics than Bonaventure did, he used the philosophy of Aristotle much more explicitly, and he utilized both inductive and deductive reasoning, while the later Bonaventure focused primarily on deductive reasoning. Because theology is, indeed, discourse about God and about the First Principle, as the highest science and doctrine it should resolve everything in God as its first and supreme principle. That is why, in giving the

81

82

Fundamental Theology

God, properly understood, are fully consistent with truths that can be discovered by human reasoning. In his brilliant reconciliation of the perennial tension between revelation and reason, Aquinas made extensive use of Aristotelian principles to explicate and defend the various teachings within Christian sacred doctrine. Thus, he contended that while the truths of the faith, including the reality of God, cannot be proved by reason, they can be shown to be consistent with matters that are demonstrated by reason alone. This scholastic form of academic theology became firmly established in medieval universities, and it persisted well into the Reformation era. In the nineteenth century there was a great revival of “neo-Thomist” theology, and it became authoritative within the Catholic Church. Many Roman Catholic theologians today still seek to articulate a kind of Thomistic synthesis between faith and philosophy.47

Reformation and post-Reformation theology Martin Luther (1483–1546), who had been trained as an Augustinian monk and scholar in this broad tradition of scholastic theology (though he seems not to have studied Aquinas’s theology to any great depth), underwent a serious personal crisis of faith which led him eventually to reformulate the nature and basis of theology. He sharply criticized the use of Aristotle’s philosophy or any other form of human reasoning in the discipline of theology. He thought philosophy easily led theologians down a wrong path when it came to understanding God. True theologians take their cues solely from God’s scriptural word of promise about Christ, the crucified and risen Savior. Such a word, Luther held, can only be received by faith (which he understood primarily as “trust” or “confidence” in God). Either a person trusts the promise of forgiveness through Christ or one does not trust it. Reason is of no help in this relationship. While Luther, too, held that “every Christian is a theologian,” he thought that academic theology is oriented toward Scripture alone in service to faith alone to

reasons for everything contained in this little work or tract, I have attempted to derive each reason from the First Principle, in order to demonstrate that the truth of Sacred Scripture is from God, that it treats of God, is according to God, and has God as its end. (Bonaventure, Breviloquium, “Prologue,” 22–3) 47. Aquinas was not the only medieval theologian to use Aristotle’s philosophy as a handmaid to theology. The Persian philosopher Avicenna (980–1037) and the Spanish thinker Averroes (1126–98) also used Aristotle’s philosophy to articulate their respective understandings of truth, given by divine revelation to the Prophet Mohammed (c. 570–c. 632). Similarly, Maimonides (1135–1204), a Spanish-Jewish rabbi, attempted to reconcile Aristotle’s metaphysics with the teachings of Judaism.

Traditions of Christian Theology

bring praise and honor to Christ alone.48 Such theology takes place not merely in the classroom, where Luther excelled as a university professor of the Bible, but in the weal and woe of a human life that is lived always “before God,” through prayer, the liturgy of the church, meditation on Scripture, one’s worldly vocation in life, through spiritual crisis, doubt, suffering, and the awareness of death. All of these experiences “make the theologian,” in Luther’s view.49 According to him, “It is by living, no— more—by dying and being damned to hell that one becomes a theologian, not by knowing, reading, or speculating.”50 His own conflict-ridden life testifies to the crucible in which “the theologian of the cross” studies Scripture so as to teach and preach the good news about Christ crucified that alone can lead the sinner to trust in Christ for salvation.51 Like Augustine, Luther too wanted to assist fellow pilgrims in their faith before God. While Luther practiced theology in a wide variety of contexts and genres (sermons, polemical treatises, catechisms, letters), the majority of his theological writings are commentaries on biblical books, in which he endeavored to illuminate God’s word of graceful promise in distinction from God’s word of judgment against sinners. Luther not only used all of the available scholarly methods and resources for the formal study of Scripture, but he also held that the goal of such study, even in the university classroom, is always the cultivation of faith. The theologian’s chief task is to minister the word of promise to troubled souls like one’s own. Luther thus emphasized that Christian theology is about both God and human beings. According to him, Ps. 51 teaches that “the proper subject of theology is the human being who is guilty and condemned in his sins, and God as the God who justifies and saves the sinner.”52 Here Luther shows his continuity with older definitions, which also insisted that theology is about God, but he stressed that the discipline cannot speculate about how God is “in God.” Apart from God’s revelation, God remains hidden from human beings and ultimately unknowable by them.53 For Luther, one can think of God only on the basis of how God gives himself to be known in relation to human beings. This knowledge of God comes through God’s address to

48. “We are all theologians” (Luther, Sermon on Psalm 5 [1535], WA, 41.11.9–11). 49. “Experience alone makes the theologian” (Luther, WA Tischreden [Table Talk Recorded by Veit Dietrich (1531–3)], 1.16, LW1, 54.7 [trans. modified]). 50. Luther, Operationes in Psalmos [Lectures on the Psalms (here Psalm 5)] (1519–21), WA, 5.163.28–9. 51. For Luther’s theology of the cross, see his 1518 Heidelberg Disputation, LW1, 31.39–70. 52. Luther, Enarratio Psalmi 51 [Exposition of Psalm 51] (1532), WA, 40/2.327, 11–18 (LW1, 12.311 [trans. modified]). 53. Cf. the initial reflections on theology by the Eastern Orthodox theologian John of Damascus in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (c. 743), which is a comprehensive summary of the teaching of the Greek fathers on the principal Christian doctrines. John begins by affirming the hiddenness, ineffability, and incomprehensibility of God (I.1–2 [NPNF2, 9/2.1–2.]).

83

84

Fundamental Theology

human beings in the divine law and the gospel about Christ. This twofold address of law and gospel forms the essential content of Luther’s theology. John Calvin (1509–64), the other great Protestant reformer, also thought that theology is about both God and human beings: “Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists in two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.”54 For Calvin these two parts form an indivisible whole, since the knowledge of God and one’s self-knowledge are interrelated and depend upon each other: “Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God; … without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self.”55 Such a view goes back at least to Augustine, who said that the theologian desires to know nothing but “God and the soul.”56 He is supposed to have prayed daily, “O God, ever the same; may I know myself, may I know you. That is my prayer.”57 That is a prayer that Calvin could have prayed as well. He, too, desired to know nothing but God and his own soul. Since the days of Luther and Calvin most Christian theologians have been university professors. Luther’s colleague at the University of Wittenberg, Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), wrote the first organized exposition of the Christian faith that reflected the new “evangelical” teaching.58 Unlike Luther, who tended not to use philosophical categories and methods to explicate Christian doctrine, Melanchthon made frequent use of Aristotle and the writings of humanist scholars to articulate and defend scriptural teaching on the various theological topics (Loci). His way of doing theology in some ways harkens back to Aquinas. Nevertheless, Melanchthon agreed with Luther’s view that the gospel is distinct from philosophy, which he defined as “the teaching of human reason.” “The gospel is not a philosophy or a law,” Melanchthon stressed, “but it is the forgiveness of sins and the promise of reconciliation and eternal life for the sake of Christ; and human reason by itself cannot apprehend any of these things.”59 Therefore, theology, properly speaking, is all about the message of the gospel. But Melanchthon also acknowledged that theologians do have some knowledge of God apart from that gospel. Other Evangelical (Lutheran) and Reformed (Calvinist) theologians have agreed. Melanchthon thus maintained the medieval distinction 54. Calvin, ICR, I.1.1 (1.35). 55. Ibid. 56. Augustine, Soliloquies (386–387), I.2, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 5, ed. Ludwig Schopp, trans. Thomas F. Gilligan (New York: Cima, 1948), 350. 57. Ibid., II.1, in The Fathers of the Church, 5.381 (trans. modified). 58. Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1521), trans. and ed. Charles Leander Hill (Boston: Meador, 1944). In this context evangelical means “oriented to the good news about Jesus.” 59. Philip Melanchthon, “On the Distinction between the Gospel and Philosophy,” Philip Melanchthon: Orations on Philosophy and Education, ed. Sachiko Kusukawa, trans. Christine F. Salazar, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 24.

Traditions of Christian Theology

between “natural theology,” which comes from what human beings can know of God on the basis of their reasoning and experience, and “revealed theology,” the knowledge of God that comes from Holy Scripture.60 In the words of Melanchthon from a later edition of his Loci Communes: All human beings by nature know that there is an eternal omnipotent being, full of wisdom, goodness, and righteousness, that created and preserves all creatures, and also, by natural understanding, that this same omnipotent, wise, good, and just Lord is called God. Many wise people, therefore, such as Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, have said that there is such an almighty, wise, good, just God, and that we must serve this one Lord in obedience to the light that he has built into our nature concerning the distinction between virtue and vice.61

While the “innate” knowledge of God that comes through human reason and conscience does not mean that finite human beings have perfect knowledge of the nature and essence of God—the infinite majesty of God alone refutes such a notion (see Isa. 40.28)—the knowledge they do have is sufficient to provide them with the consciousness of God’s reality and the need to worship God, although not with the knowledge of who God is or how God is to be worshiped rightly. According to Calvin, although human beings have within their minds “by natural instinct an awareness of divinity,” and although they know that God is to be honored, worshiped, and obeyed, this natural knowledge of God is insufficient.62 In Melanchthon’s view, human beings “do not find peace in this natural understanding, as one can see, for all wise people have grave doubts about whether God wants to help” them, “and in all times many gods are invented.”63 Such natural understanding of God can speak only of divine law, it fosters uncertainty about God’s intentions toward human beings, and it creates concern about God’s judgment. It does not speak of God on the basis of God’s specific revelation of grace and mercy through Jesus Christ. Despite their disagreements about other matters, Lutheran and Reformed theologians in the post-Reformation period were united in stressing that theology is not “mere outward knowledge, by which the understanding alone is enriched,” but an “eminently practical wisdom” about “God and divine matters.”64 The purpose of theology is to teach sinful human beings what they need to know and do from

60. See Heinrich Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1899), 17. Cf. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: The Wakeman Trust, 1950), 1–11. 61. Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1555), I, in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, ed. and trans. Clyde L. Manschreck (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 5. 62. Calvin, ICR, I.3.1 (1.43 [trans. modified]). 63. Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1555), 6. 64. Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 15; cf. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 3.

85

86

Fundamental Theology

Holy Scripture “in order to attain true faith in Christ and holiness of life.”65 The seventeenth-century Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard (1582–1637) captures this focus in a classic and representative definition: Theology considered systematically and abstractly is the teaching drawn from the Word of God that instructs human beings in true faith and pious living for eternal life. Theology considered conditionally and concretely is the God-given condition conferred on human beings by the Holy Spirit through the Word. This condition not only instructs human beings in an understanding of the divine mysteries through the illumination of their minds, so that what they understand produces a salutary effect upon the disposition of their hearts and the actions of their lives, but so that they are also qualified to inform others concerning these divine mysteries and the way of salvation, and to vindicate heavenly truth from the aspersions of its foes; so that human beings, abounding in true faith and good works, are led to the kingdom of heaven.66

This definition clearly reflects a position similar to Aquinas’s. Like Thomas, Gerhard also defined theology on the basis of its unique object, and he made use of Aristotelian philosophy to explicate its content. For Gerhard Christian theology “deals with God the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. It continually occupies itself with God and teaches how everything has its basis in him, how everything has received its origin from him and how everything finds its goal in him, in order finally to rest in him.”67 Gerhard even favorably quoted Aquinas: “Theology is taught by God, it teaches God, and it leads to God.”68 Nevertheless, Gerhard also emphasized that theology is “practical instruction,” which teaches human beings about “true faith and pious living for eternal life, rather than abstract knowledge pursued for its own sake.”69 Once again, we hear echoes of Augustine: the object of theology includes “the human being” who is “to be led to eternal blessedness.”70 Gerhard’s approach to theology thus focuses upon “the created and corrupted nature” of human beings and “the means that lead to the goal of theology, namely, the restoration and salvation” of human beings. “These means,” he said, “are the true and salutary knowledge of God, true faith in Christ, and whatever else serves these means.”71 In this context we must also refer to the understanding of theology by the sixteenthcentury Spanish Carmelite nun Teresa of Ávila (1515–82), one of the great mystical theologians of the Christian tradition. She agreed with the basic starting point of 65. Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 15. 66. Johann Gerhard, “Preface,” Loci theologici (1625), in On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis: Concordia, 2006), 42 (trans. modified). 67. Ibid., 41–2 (trans. modified). 68. Ibid., 27 (quoting Aquinas, ST, I.1.7). 69. Ibid., 41–2. 70. Ibid., 41. 71. Ibid.

Traditions of Christian Theology

Pseudo-Dionysius, namely, that God is utterly incomprehensible, but combined that emphasis with a strong Augustinian affirmation of the need for the soul to love God above all things. We can only approach God, who is beyond our understanding, through the elevation of our soul by the infusion of God’s grace. Because our created intellect is incapable of comprehending God, we can only humbly approach God as the object of our love, one whom we can love but not fully understand. For Teresa, theology is inherently mystical; it is grounded and guided by fervent prayer and the contemplation of Scripture. The aim of this contemplative, mystical theology is the union of the soul with God. Teresa’s theology is thus at once deeply interior and ecstatic (= “standing outside of oneself ”). She wrote about her own mystical, ecstatic experiences that overcame her suddenly, when, as she stated: I represented Christ within me in order to place myself in His presence, or even when while reading, that a feeling of the presence of God would come upon me unexpectedly so that I could in no way doubt He was within me or I totally immersed in Him. This did not occur after the manner of a vision. I believe they call the experience “mystical theology.” The soul is suspended in such a way that it seems to be completely outside itself. The will loves; the memory, it seems to me, is almost lost. For, as I say, the intellect does not work, but it is as though amazed by all it understands because God desires that it understand, with regard to the things His Majesty represents to it, that it understands nothing.72

While Teresa’s reflections will likely raise critical questions regarding the role of subjective experience in theology, her work highlights the importance of humility, prayer, scriptural contemplation, and spiritual discipline in the formation of any truly living Christian theology.

Modern Christian theology While Johann Gerhard and several other Protestant theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries utilized Aristotelian philosophy to articulate the content of 72. Teresa of Ávila, The Book of Her Life (1565), in vol. 1 of The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, 2nd edn, ed. and trans. Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez (Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1987– 2002), 105. Like other female theologians in the Christian tradition, Teresa occasionally used feminine imagery to describe God. See her other two important books, The Way of Perfection (after 1565), ed. and trans. E. Allison Peers (New York: Doubleday, 1991); and The Interior Castle (1577), trans. Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez (New York: Paulist, 1979). In 1970 she was declared a “Doctor of the Church” by Pope Paul VI. Among the most important and influential of recent Christian mystics was Simone Weil (1909–43), who wrote of being suddenly possessed by Christ, whereby “neither my senses nor my imagination had any part; I only felt in the midst of my suffering the presence of a love, like that which one can read in the smile on a beloved face” (Simone Weil, “Spiritual Autobiography,” in Waiting for God, trans. Emma Craufurd [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], 69).

87

88

Fundamental Theology

Christian doctrine, other theologians moved more in the direction of understanding theology as mostly a matter of the “regenerated heart” of the Christian. In their concern to strengthen the personal piety of individual Christians, these theologians emphasized the practical, experiential aspect of theology and were generally critical of “theoretical” academic theology, which they saw as largely uninterested in matters of “practical theology” and the Christian moral life. This type of theology has affinities with emphases in Teresa’s mystical theology. An early example of this type of theologian was an older friend of Gerhard, the Lutheran pastor Johann Arndt (1555–1621), whose devotional writings stressed that individuals who are justified by faith in Christ should demonstrate signs that they are truly spiritually regenerated. In Arndt’s most famous book, True Christianity, he argued against spiritual complacency and sought to renew theology for the sake of inspiring contrition and encouraging individuals to struggle against sin.73 Another important example of this type of theology (which came to be labeled “pietistic”) was Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705), an expert in Luther’s theology, who, as the so-called “father of Lutheran Pietism,” outlined several proposals for reforming the Lutheran Church in the German-speaking territories of his time.74 His recommendations included the need for personal study of the Bible at home (in small groups that were to be guided by spiritually minded pastors), as well as the reform of university theological education to focus more on pastoral care and true spiritual edification rather than on academic rigor. The theology of Arndt and Spener later influenced the pietistic theology of Count Zinzendorf and John Wesley, and through them it influenced the theology of American Methodists and Baptists. Toward the end of the seventeenth century some individuals who had been raised as Lutheran Pietists developed once again a more rational, critical approach to religion in general and to Christian theology in particular. A good illustration of this approach appears in the work of Johann Salamo Semler (1725–91), also a university professor. He was totally uninterested in the liturgical and spiritual life of the church and focused almost all his attention on historical and philological problems in the development of doctrine in Christianity. He was among the first to use critical-historical tools for studying the Bible like any other ancient text. As did many others of his day and later, he more or less bracketed out of his research any actual reference to the object of Christian faith. He became convinced that the Bible is a set of “primitive” religious texts written by a great variety of fallible human beings, and that it contained as many problems and errors as just about any other ancient, human text. With the emergence of even more critical tools for biblical study, scholars who followed in Semler’s wake tended to reject the supernatural, miraculous

73. Johann Arndt, True Christianity (1605), ed. and trans. Peter Erb (New York: Paulist, 1979). 74. Philipp Jakob Spener, Pia Desideria, or Heartfelt Desire for a God-Pleasing Reform of the True Evangelical Church (1675), trans. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964).

Traditions of Christian Theology

elements within the Bible and to restate the content of Christian faith exclusively in rational and moral terms. A further classic example of this rationalist way of understanding theology appears in the writings of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), the foremost philosopher of the European Enlightenment period. His book Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone largely reduced the content of Christianity to a matter of moral teaching.75 Kant also put sharp limits on human knowledge, contending that all possible knowledge can arise only from a synthesis of sense experience of reality and the human mind’s own ability to shape that experience into the form that it must have in order to be received and understood. A major outcome of Kant’s metaphysics— which also included strong criticism of traditional arguments for the reality of God as understood in Western philosophical theology—was his rejection of the possibility of establishing any metaphysical truths at all. He thus held that there was no possibility of human access to any ultimate reality as an object of knowledge, although he did “posit” belief in God, freedom, and the immortality of the soul as postulates of “practical,” moral reason, that is, as necessary aids for the conduct of one’s life in this evil world.76 In America, Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) renewed the Calvinist tradition and sparked a great popular religious revival (“The Great Awakening” in the 1730s and 1740s), which focused on what he called “the great things of the eternal world.”77 He opposed vanity, defended the vitality of religious experience, and shepherded the people who came in droves to hear him preach. While some Americans might recall having read his most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” in high school, Edwards’s Puritan theology is about far more than the doctrines of God’s damnation, hell-fire, and brimstone. His theological perspective was one that brought together both an intellectual, even philosophical, accounting of Christian truth and what he called “the Christian affections” (which was the title of one of his more popular books). Like the medieval mystics mentioned earlier, Edwards too wanted people to strive for a life of holiness. With some justification he has been called “America’s greatest theologian.”78 Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), a German theologian out of the same Calvinist tradition as Edwards, had been a Pietist as a young boy, but then as a university student he came under the influence of Kant’s moral theology and his 75. For the bibliographic details, see footnote 24 in the introductory chapter. 76. Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Practical Reason (1788), trans. Lewis White Beck (New York: Macmillan, 1985), 126–39. 77. Jonathan Edwards, Faithful Narrative, in The Works of President Edwards, 10 vols, ed. Edward Williams and Edward Parsons (1817; reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, 1968), 1.348. 78. See Robert Jenson, America’s Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

89

90

Fundamental Theology

critique of metaphysics. We know from letters to his father that he went through a crisis of faith in the university. Later he broke away from the rationalist approach to Christianity he learned there and came to define theology as reflection on a particular sense or feeling of “the Infinite” or, more broadly, as reflection on various states of religious self-consciousness. He sometimes defined the core of this self-awareness as a feeling of absolute dependence upon God. This religious sense or feeling is both prior to and distinct from any human knowing and moral action. According to Schleiermacher, theology is therefore not metaphysics or science. It is not ethics or morality, nor is it grounded any longer in a divinely inspired, inerrant Bible. Instead, Christian theology is reflection on human religious feeling or states of consciousness, as these are shaped and modified within a specific historical church community. In other words, Christian theology critically describes “a way of believing” that is common to a Christian community. In Schleiermacher’s view, then, the primary purpose of academic theology is to prepare leaders for their practical tasks as teachers and preachers in these specific church communities. Schleiermacher’s way of re-visioning Christian theology as an academic discipline is so important that we should look at his position more closely. Because theology is partly dependent upon nontheological academic disciplines (e.g., the study of history, languages, philosophy), a question arose in the late eighteenth century regarding its place within higher education. Does it really belong within a European university? Wanting still to be a full participant within German and American universities, Christian theology found itself nevertheless constantly giving way to those who studied it nontheologically, that is, who studied it historically, psychologically, and sociologically. The question of its properly theological character, including the issue of its truthfulness, was either bracketed out or deemed unimportant. In this way theology became more and more marginalized in the university in relation to the natural, social, and human sciences.79 When Schleiermacher helped to found the first major modern research-oriented university, the University of Berlin, in 1810, he argued for the inclusion of theology as an academic discipline. For him theology was necessary to the mission of a German university since it educated and equipped future Protestant ministers with a scholarly understanding of Christianity. Only in this way would they be properly outfitted for public service in the Prussian (German) Protestant Church. Such a scholarly understanding of Christianity would develop from the critical investigation of its historic sources and norms. For Schleiermacher, theology is “a positive scholarly discipline” because it gathers together the knowledge that is “requisite for carrying out a practical task,” that is, for preaching, teaching, engaging in ethics, caring for 79. For the history of this marginalization, see Thomas Albert Howard, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Traditions of Christian Theology

individuals, and leading Christian communities.80 “Christian theology, accordingly, is that assemblage of scholarly knowledge and practical instruction without the possession and application of which a united leadership of the Christian Church, that is, a supervision of the Church in the fullest sense, is not possible.”81 Later, when he wrote his summary of Christian doctrine, Schleiermacher defined theology more concretely in terms of the content of Christian faith. In this way he turned more directly toward the object of theology and somewhat away from its practical goal. In his later years he stressed that the content of theology could not be “God as God is in se” (how God is “in God”) but only statements that believing Christians could assert about their faith in God. For this reason, Schleiermacher’s summary of Christian teaching has been called a “Glaubenslehre,” that is, a “teaching about faith.” Instead of focusing on the transcendent God and God’s selfrevelation, the concern of the theologian, Schleiermacher argued, should be about the way in which specific religious people believe within their particular religious communities of faith. Christian theology thus explicates the pious self-consciousness of contemporary believing Christians in relation to the historical investigation of the development of Christian theological understanding for the sake of the present practical needs of Christian leaders and the communities they serve. According to Schleiermacher, “Propositions regarding Christian faith are conceptions of Christian religious states of mind and heart presented in the form of discourse.”82 The selfconsciousness of faith, not God’s self-revelation as attested to in Scripture, marks the starting point of Schleiermacher’s theological project. It is an essential aspect of the broad nineteenth-century “liberal Protestant” tradition that he helped to inaugurate, and that gradually spread far beyond Germany. Georg Hegel (1768–1834), a German Lutheran philosopher and contemporary of Schleiermacher, rejected the latter’s understanding of theology and his call for the peaceful independence of religion from the sciences. He thought that Christianity represents the highest form of religion and contains within its doctrinal traditions the symbols that, if properly understood and philosophically explicated, bear the deepest universal truth. Hegel contended that “the goal of philosophy is the cognition of the truth—the cognition of God because he is the absolute truth. In that context nothing else is worth troubling about compared with God and his explication.”83 By explicating “the rational content in the Christian religion” and showing “that the witness of the Spirit, the truth in the most all-embracing sense of the term, is 80. Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline on the Study of Theology (1830), trans. Terrence N. Tice (Atlanta: John Knox, 1966), 19. 81. Ibid., 20 (trans. modified). 82. Schleiermacher, CF, 1.116. 83. Georg Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1824–31), 3 vols, ed. Peter C. Hodgson, trans. R. F. Brown, P. C. Hodgson, and J. M. Stewart (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984–7), 3.246.

91

92

Fundamental Theology

deposited in religion,” he hoped to reconcile “reason with religion in its manifold forms” and “to rediscover truth and the idea in the revelatory religion.”84 Hegel thus endeavored to uncover what he saw as the kernel of philosophical truth contained within the historical development of the religions of the world. In a different, more historically oriented way, he was doing what Plato and Aristotle had done when they criticized the Greek myths in order to uncover the philosophical truths that they contained. Just as all religions, and specifically Christianity, contain a genuine content of philosophical truth, so Hegel thought the philosophy of religion must necessarily change the form of religious symbols and teachings into a more adequate, rational form than they had developed on their own. His system of philosophy, borrowing heavily from the Christian tradition, is among the grandest of human efforts to express the fundamental unity of apparent paradoxes and contradictions in life and thought, religion and philosophy, and God and world. Still, it is worth noting how his system prepared the way for some of his students, notably Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, to turn their teacher’s theological philosophy on its head and transform it into philosophical atheism and materialism. Nevertheless, the abiding significance of Hegel’s philosophy is to raise continually the question of truth in religious studies and Christian theology. That concern shows his continuity with ancient Greek philosophers. Influenced by both Schleiermacher and Hegel, whose lectures in Berlin he attended, Johannes von Hofmann (1810–77) was critical of his famous teachers for their supposed lack of attention to historical facts and biblical details. Nevertheless, Hofmann’s understanding of theology was deeply marked by Schleiermacher’s systematic and methodical perspective. For Hofmann, theology entails correlating a systematic analysis of the Christian experience of baptismal regeneration and personal faith with an historical investigation of the Christian Scriptures. In his view, the Bible offers the record of God’s saving activity in history, what he called “salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte), which provides the basis for Christian faith. Hofmann’s peculiar form of “faith seeking understanding” led him to define theology as that discipline born out of the Christian theologian’s own desire to understand and give expression to the present historical situation (inclusive of the Word, sacraments, the church’s historic confessions and teachings) that “makes the Christian a Christian.”85 Hofmann’s theology thus stands somewhere between Lutheran Pietism and the liberal Protestant tradition. Liberal Protestant theology became the dominant form of theology in German universities in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Given that this form of theology sought to reinterpret Christian teachings to accord with a “cultured,” 84. Ibid., 3.247. 85. Matthew L. Becker, The Self-Giving God and Salvation History: The Trinitarian Theology of Johannes von Hofmann (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 12.

Traditions of Christian Theology

educated outlook that takes into account modern scientific knowledge, technology, and secular political and economic structures and theories, it has also been labeled “Cultural Protestantism” (Kulturprotestantismus) or “neo-Protestantism.” The key figure in this liberal movement of Protestant theology was Albrecht Ritschl (1822–89), who stressed that religion cannot be reduced to other forms of human experience. He held that Christianity is primarily an “inward” and personal experience—which is also social and communal—and that Christian faith apprehends religious knowledge by “value judgments,” not by theoretical knowledge.86 Ritschl emphasized the need for each individual to further the corporate, social kingdom of God by overcoming the limiting conditions of the external natural world (e.g., selfish instincts, social forces opposed to the moral teaching of Christ), loving others for the sake of the common good, and striving for a perfect society. These culture-affirming aims were embraced by many of Ritschl’s students who themselves became important research professors in their own right, for example, Julius Kaftan (1848–1926), Wilhelm Herrmann (1846–1922), Martin Rade (1857–1940), and Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930). Of these, Harnack was the most influential. In a famous set of public lectures he defined “the essence of Christianity” as “the coming kingdom of God,” “the Fatherhood of God,” “the brotherhood of man,” and the infinite value of the individual human soul.87 Harnack stressed that academic theology (which, for him, could only be “liberal Protestantism”) must not give up the task of expressing the evangelical-Protestant faith in a new, straightforward, and clear manner, of using contemporary language and thought forms to convey theological truth, and of articulating a more refined moral conscience for the sake of a better society. Scholarly theology must pursue the truth, wherever it leads, and always seek genuine scholarly objectivity beyond one’s particular subjectivity. While Harnack’s sexist language is a bit jarring today, one discerns in his theology a positive view of human nature, of the mind and its abilities, and of people’s potential

86. See Albert Temple Swing, The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl (New York: Longmans, Green, 1901), which includes an English translation of Ritschl’s slim summary of Christian doctrine, Instruction in the Christian Religion, translated by Alice Mead Swing; Philip Hefner, Faith and the Vitalities of History (New York: Harper & Row, 1966); and David L. Mueller, An Introduction to the Theology of Albrecht Ritschl (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969). 87. Adolf von Harnack, What Is Christianity?, trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders (New York: Harper & Row, 1957). Harnack taught historical theology at several prestigious German research-oriented universities. The breadth and depth of his historical scholarship on the origins of Christianity and the history of Christian dogma are unsurpassed. From 1905 to 1921 he was the director of the Prussian State Library in Berlin. In 1910 he became the first president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (later renamed the Max Planck Society). Harnack helped to draft the Weimar Constitution and was one of the Republic’s most visible and well-respected supporters.

93

94

Fundamental Theology

to do good in order to bring about a better world. Decidedly relegated to the category of outdated dogma are the virgin birth of Jesus, his divine nature, and his resurrection and ascension. Not the atonement of Christ on the cross or the dogma of the Trinity, but the Sermon on the Mount epitomizes the essential content of the Christian religion, according to Harnack, whose prodigious and insightful scholarship marks the high point of liberal Protestantism.

The last century of Christian theology That liberal tradition of Protestant theology, which began with Kant, Schleier­ macher, and Hegel, weakened as a result of the First World War (1914–18) and the cultural crisis that the war unleashed in Europe. Already as a parish pastor and then later as a professor in Germany and Switzerland the Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) rejected central aspects of that liberal Protestant tradition in which he had been educated. The new theological movement that he and a few others established is best described by the label “dialectical theology”—rather than “neo-orthodoxy,” a label many also give it—because it wants to affirm and deny certain theological statements on the basis of the qualitative difference between God and creation. Barth explicitly rejected Schleiermacher’s understanding of theology, especially the view that it concerned the devout self-consciousness and religious experience of the believer. Barth wanted to return theology to what he considered its proper grounding in the self-revelation of God. According to Barth and his followers, theology is not about the self-description of the Christian’s religious affections or devout self-consciousness, nor is it about “the Christian faith” as a human way of believing; it is solely about the word of God, the address of God, which the theologian is merely to speak faithfully again and again in the present situation. For Barth, theology begins and ends with the self-giving of God in God’s own revelation in Jesus Christ as the living Word of God, to which the biblical writings attest: Theology is one among those human undertakings traditionally described as “sciences” [Wissenschaften]. Not only the natural sciences are “sciences.” Humanistic sciences [Geisteswissenschaften] also seek to apprehend a specific object and its environment in the manner directed by the phenomenon itself; they seek to understand it on its own terms and to speak of it along with all the implications of its existence. The word “theology” seems to signify a special science, a very special science, whose task is to apprehend, understand, and speak of “God.” … Such theology intends to apprehend, to understand, and to speak of the God of the gospel, in the midst of the variety of all other theologies and (without any value-judgment being implied) in distinction from them. This is the God who reveals himself in the gospel, who himself speaks to

Traditions of Christian Theology

people and acts among and upon them. Wherever he becomes the object of human scholarship, both its source and its norm, there is evangelical theology.88

Such a theology is, however, also guided by what the theologian discovers in the local newspaper’s reporting about contemporary important events, since the theologian/ preacher needs to discern “the signs of the times” in order to understand how the word of God needs to be proclaimed faithfully in each particular set of circumstances. Barth once said that a Christian preacher should read both the Bible and the local newspaper, but “interpret newspapers from your Bible.”89 In that situation, Barth argued, theologians and preachers need to resist the adaptation of Christian theology to modern, Western, scientific culture. Like Tertullian before him, Barth asserted that Christian theology is about the triune God who is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ through “the strange new world of the Bible.”90 Christian theology is not about human beings, their religious experience, or their religious ideas. It certainly is not about human optimism, technological achievement, and so-called “advances” in Western civilization. The First World War had called all of that into question, but so too did the Bible’s teaching about human depravity and sin—which had come to be neglected or rejected by much of modern theology. According to Barth, one cannot talk about God by talking about human beings in a loud voice. For Barth, all Christian theology is revealed vertically “from above” and solely grounded in that divine revelation. This position is reflected in the so-called Barmen Declaration of 1934 which Barth, as principal author, wrote in opposition to the Nazification of the German Protestant Church during the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The first thesis of that document underscores a Barthian understanding of Christian theology: Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.91

88. Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (1962), trans. Grover Foley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 3, 5–6 (trans. modified; emphasis in original). 89. Karl Barth, as quoted in Time magazine (May 31, 1963), 60. 90. Karl Barth, “The Strange New World within the Bible” (1916), in The Word of God and the Word of Man, trans. Douglas Horton (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 28–50. 91. Die Barmer Theologische Erklärung: Einführung und Dokumentation [The Barmen Theological Declaration: Introduction and Documentation] (1934), ed. Martin Heimbucher and Rudolf Weth, 7th edn (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2009), 37. For my translation of this document, go to: https://mat​thew​lbec​ ker.blogs​pot.com/2012/10/peric​ope-of-week-theo​logi​cal.html (accessed 28 January 2023).

95

96

Fundamental Theology

The monumental thirteen-volume Church Dogmatics that Barth wrote between the early 1930s and the mid-1960s (left unfinished at his death) represents his sustained effort to explicate what he understood to be the essential content of the revelation of this one Word of God.92 Barth’s dogmatics must be considered one of the greatest achievements in the history of Christian theology. Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), another key figure in the early movement of dialectical theology, agreed with Barth that the object of theology is God. Bultmann thought that “the chief charge to be brought against liberal theology is that it has dealt not with God but with man.”93 Nevertheless, while Bultmann agreed with Barth that “the subject of theology is God,” he also stressed, in a way that Barth did not, that theology “speaks of God because it speaks of man as he stands before God. That is, theology speaks out of faith.”94 In other words, God can only be spoken of in relation to human existence “before God”: If we are actually speaking of God, then the mode of access appropriate to him must be conformable to him as the object of experience, the mode we call faith. If God is the object of faith and accessible only to faith, then a scholarly discipline apart from faith or alongside it can see neither God nor faith, which is what it is only by means of its object … The task, therefore, is to define the nature of theology on the basis of its object, and within its only possible mode of access, on the basis of the fides quae [the faith that is believed] and qua creditur [the faith that believes]. What God is cannot be understood if faith is not understood, and vice versa. Theology is thus scholarly discipline about God, since it is scholarly discipline about faith, and vice versa.95 92. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (1932–67), 4 vols in 13, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley, G. T. Thomson, T. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnston, J. L. M. Haire, J. C. Campbell, Iain Wilson, J. Strathearn, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, R. J. Ehrlich, Harold Knight, J. K. S. Reid, R. A. Stewart, and R. H. Fuller (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936–77). Since many people today understand the words dogmatic and dogma in a negative way, for example, as reflecting arrogance, intolerant authoritativeness, and intransigence, we should examine them a little more closely. While one of the meanings of the Greek word dogma is indeed “opinion,” in the ancient world this word referred to “a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed,” for example, to an ordinance or decision or a command (BDAG, 254). Within the early church, this term referred to “something that is taught as an established tenet or statement of belief,” for example, a doctrine or a teaching (BDAG, 254). Thus, the term dogma is ordinarily used in Christian theology to designate the official, central teachings of a church. The term dogmatics simply refers to the scholarly study of these basic church teachings. Christian dogmatics need not necessarily be executed in an uncritical or arrogant manner. Indeed, many Christian theologians today stress the need for humility, self-criticism, and openness to others in the task of theology. Cf. Chapter 3. 93. Rudolf Bultmann, “Liberal Theology and the Latest Theological Movement” (1924), in Faith and Understanding, ed. Robert W. Funk, trans. Louise Pettibone Smith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 29. 94. Ibid., 52. 95. Rudolf Bultmann, What Is Theology? (1926–36), ed. Eberhard Jüngel and Klaus Müller, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 37, 49 (trans. modified).

Traditions of Christian Theology

Bultmann similarly differed from Barth by insisting on the central importance of critical-historical investigation of the NT and by arguing that modern Christians needed to rethink (and perhaps even reject) the supposedly “mythological” elements within the apostolic proclamation (the “three-storied universe” of heaven, earth, and hell; the intervention of supernatural powers; Satan; demons; the preexistence of the Son of God; the virgin birth; the resurrection and ascension of Jesus) so as not to confuse “authentic faith” with an outmoded worldview.96 Bultmann and those influenced by him, such as Gerhard Ebeling (1912–2001), thought that the best means for doing this necessary reinterpreting was an existentialist philosophy and theology that helped to clarify the conditions of human existence, the present selfunderstandings of human beings, and the future possibilities of human existence.97 Once again, the ancient Greek critical-philosophical spirit shows itself here. While the word of God is still central for Bultmann and his followers, that word lays claim to human beings and the totality of their existence: We cannot talk about our existence since we cannot talk about God. And we cannot talk about God since we cannot talk about our existence. We could only do the one along with the other. If we could talk of God from God, then we could talk of our existence, or vice versa. In any case, talking of God, if it were possible, would necessarily be talking at the same time of ourselves. Therefore, the truth holds that when the question is raised of how any speaking of God can be possible, the answer must be, it is only possible as talk of ourselves.98

The key to understanding this statement is the difference between the prepositions “about” and “of.” Following Luther, Bultmann thought that all talk “about” God is sinful, since God “can never be seen from without, can never be something at our disposal, can never be a ‘something in respect of which.’ ”99 God is not an “object” for human manipulation, which is what Bultmann thought occurred as soon as people began talking “about” God. Human beings are sinners who are wholly different from God, and they stand under the God who is “Wholly Other” (a phrase first used by the nineteenth-century Lutheran philosopher Søren Kierkegaard [1813–55] and then by Barth). Yet they must speak of God, if they are to know their own true human 96. Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology” (1941), in Kerygma and Myth, vol. 1, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1957), 1–44. 97. Ebeling, who also studied under Bonhoeffer, must be considered one of the most important interpreters of Luther’s theology in the twentieth century. Like the great reformer, Ebeling stressed that the subject of theology is the human being who is in need of divine justification and the God who justifies the human being through Jesus Christ. See especially Gerhard Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction to His Thought, trans. R. Wilson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970); Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963). 98. Rudolf Bultmann, “What Does It Mean to Speak of God?” (1925), in Faith and Understanding, 60–1. 99. Ibid., 60.

97

98

Fundamental Theology

existence “under God” through faith, which is itself created only by the speaking of God. Faith can be only the affirmation of God’s action upon us, the answer to his word directed to us. For if the realization of our own existence is involved in faith and if our existence is grounded in God and is non-existent outside God, then to apprehend our existence means to apprehend God … We can speak of him only in so far as we are speaking of his word spoken to us, of his act done to us.100

Here Schleiermacher’s liberal Protestant understanding of theology as a “teaching about faith” again comes into view, despite Bultmann’s earlier criticism of the liberal Protestant tradition.101 Many have noted that the line of thinking set forth by Schleiermacher and then revised by Bultmann—that one can only speak of God by speaking at the same time about human beings—could lead to the conclusion that theology is really only anthropology, the scholarly study of human beings. Might it be that God is not really “Wholly Other” or “over against” or even “for” human beings in “the word of faith,” and that theology is involved in perpetrating a grand deception or illusion? Bultmann’s understanding of the theological task seems to lead in this direction of the radical critique of the traditional object of theology, its transformation into something other, and even the revision of theology into atheistic theology (“a-theology”). This concern that theology might become something other than what it is and ought to be was behind Barth’s criticism of Bultmann’s existentialist approach and his program of “de-mythologizing” the NT. Barth concluded that Bultmann’s translation of the message of the NT had lost the gospel of God’s condescension into the world, God’s self-revelation through the ministry, death, and actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and his lordship over the church. Barth accused Bultmann of replacing the proper subject of theology—God—with something of the modern theologian’s own making.102 100. Ibid., 63. Bultmann then quoted his own liberal Protestant teacher, Wilhelm Herrmann (1846– 1922): “Of God we can only tell what he does to us.” This position is reminiscent of the famous statement by Philip Melanchthon: “to know Christ [is] to know his benefits [to us]” (Melanchthon, Loci Communes [1521], 68). 101. For a recent example of a summary of Christian teaching that is significantly shaped by the liberal Protestant tradition, see B. A. Gerrish, Christian Faith: Dogmatics in Outline (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2015). “Christian dogmatics, as a part of Christian theology, has for its subject matter the distinctively Christian way of having faith, in which elemental faith is confirmed, specified, and represented as filial trust in God the Father of Jesus Christ” (Gerrish, Christian Faith, 3). The principal resources that Gerrish used in his seminars on Christian dogmatics at the University of Chicago were Calvin’s Institutes and Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith. 102. See Karl Barth, “Rudolf Bultmann: An Attempt to Understand Him” (1952), in Kerygma and Myth, vol. 2, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1962), 83–132.

Traditions of Christian Theology

Another important German Protestant theologian, Werner Elert (1883–1954), criticized both Barth and Bultmann because they seemed to have forgotten the long-standing distinctions between the divine law and the divine gospel, between natural theology and revealed theology, and between the way in which God works coercively through secular governments, law, and conscience (on the one hand), and noncoercively through the scriptural word of promise and the means of grace for the sake of faith (on the other hand). For Elert and other confessional Lutherans, God relates to sinful human beings, albeit negatively, through the divine law that is revealed apart from Christ, through the human conscience, through the human experience of guilt, suffering, and death, and through the consciousness of sin and the divine retribution for sin. These areas of human experience are also open to scholarly investigation by Christian theologians. According to Elert, the goal of Christian theology is “to establish” for the present situation of the church “the mandatory content of the church’s preaching.”103 This required content is not identical to the contents of the Bible, since Scripture contains material (e.g., biblical cosmologies) that is nonessential to the church’s contemporary preaching, nor is it the result of a coercive understanding of “faith” (i.e., faith as a set of beliefs that must be believed). Rather, theology specifies the essential content of the church’s proclamation that enables it to be the good news about Jesus, to which the prophets and apostles bear witness. Within that task, theology keeps one eye focused on the content of Scripture and the development of Christian doctrine, and one eye focused on the critical questions that arise from an unbelieving world. Clearly, Elert’s own understanding of the nature of Christian theology and its (partial) orientation toward human religious experience is indebted to both Luther and Schleiermacher.104 That same indebtedness is evident in the theology of another twentieth-century German Lutheran theologian, Paul Tillich (1886–1965), whose “method of correlation” provides “answers” to “questions” formulated by philosophical reflection on human existence, its problems, and challenges: Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence. This is a circle which drives man to a point where question and answer are not separated.105

Tillich’s “answering theology” represents a creative effort to restate traditional Lutheran confessional Christian theology into modern terms and concepts that 103. Werner Elert, Der christliche Glaube [The Christian Faith] (Berlin: Furche, 1940; 6th edn, 1955), 34. 104. See Matthew L. Becker, “Werner Elert (1885–1954),” in Twentieth-Century Lutheran Theologians, ed. Mark C. Mattes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 93–135. 105. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.61.

99

100

Fundamental Theology

corresponded to his own understanding of philosophical metaphysics. He thought this was necessary in order to articulate and defend the truths of Christian faith for modern human beings who live in “this world that has come of age,” to use the phrase made famous by the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–45).106 Like other existentialist theologians, such as Bultmann, Tillich thought the revelation of God cannot be properly understood apart from the self-understanding of modern human beings. Without attention to contemporary intellectual currents and modes of thought, the Christian message of God will be deemed irrelevant and unintelligible. In this view the task of theology entails the need for existential analysis of human existence and careful attention to the proclamation of the word of God for the sake of creating faith in the present moment. One may detect a similar “existential” approach to theology in the work of the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner (1904–84), who wrote many essays on a variety of theological topics. He was especially concerned to address the contemporary intellectual challenges to the Christian faith. His “theological investigations” take seriously the centrality of the human experience of God (a sense of the transcendent that Rahner thought had been lost in the modern world) and the biblical witness to the mystery of God’s decisive act of salvation in Jesus. He found insights from Augustine and Aquinas particularly useful for contemporary theology. According to Rahner, one’s thinking about God has its starting point in the human experience of the mystery of salvation in Christ.107 Since the days of Barth, Elert, Tillich, and Rahner, both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians have become much more aware of their social and cultural contexts, and this awareness has in turn led to transformations of traditional definitions of Christian theology. Over the past half century many theologians, themselves critical of Barth’s own seeming lack of attention toward a theology 106. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. John W. De Gruchy, trans. Isabel Best, Lisa Dahill, Reinhard Krauss, and Nancy Lukens, vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Victoria J. Barnett and Barbara Wojhoski (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 426. Bonhoeffer’s own understanding of theology was deeply influenced by Barth’s: “Theological study no longer means revealing the passions of one’s ego; it is about responsible study and listening, becoming attentive to the Word of God, which has been revealed right here in this world; it is toning down one’s self in the face of what is far and away the most important matter” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “What Should a Student of Theology Do Today?” [1933], in Berlin: 1932–1933, vol. 12 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Larry Rasmussen, trans. Isabel Best and David Higgins [Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 2009], 433). 107. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1978), 39. Another very influential Catholic theologian in the second half of the twentieth century, Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–88), who himself was influenced significantly by Barth, emphasized that Christian theology is always a faithful response to God’s own self-revelation, which he stressed is best understood as the revelation of divine beauty or “the glory of the Lord.” The connection with Barth’s understanding of theology is unmistakable here.

Traditions of Christian Theology

of nature and the future of the whole cosmos, have attacked the existentialist theologians for their excessive individualism and for their neglect of the larger social and universal horizons of cosmic history and creation. Among the most important of these theologians is Jürgen Moltmann (b. 1926), who questioned Bultmann’s focus on the self-understanding of human beings: Is any self-understanding of man conceivable at all which is not determined by his relation to the world, to history, to society? Can human life have subsistence and duration without outgoing and objectification, and without this does it not evaporate into nothingness in endless reflection? It is the task of theology to expound the knowledge of God in a correlation between understanding of the world and self-understanding.108

Still other theologians, influenced by Moltmann’s global and political concerns, want to renew the practical orientation of theology by stressing how it ought to interpret critically contemporary situations of political and social oppression and to reflect theologically upon the actions of human beings in service to the practical goal of social, economic, and political justice. These concerns have been especially highlighted by the various forms of “liberation theology” (Latin American, African, Asian), whose practitioners have argued that Christian theology cannot merely be theoretical but must also involve actual “praxis” (behavior, specific practices, actual deeds) and the critique of social injustice, poverty, and oppression.109 Among the more central voices of liberation theology has been Gustavo Gutiérrez (b. 1928), whose Latin-American theology of liberation exposes the oppression of poor and despised people and confesses the transforming love and grace of God to bring about true human liberation. Indeed, liberation theologians speak of God as being revealed within the history of the poor, of coming among us as one who is poor and who suffers. God’s work among the poor is to bring about true transformation and liberation of the poor, the forgotten, the despised, and the oppressed. This revelation of God fundamentally alters the nature of theology itself, which should no longer be a privileged activity of relatively wealthy “first-world” university and seminary professors, but become a concrete praxis and reflection in relation to specific structures of oppression, with actual grassroots communities of faith, and in light of “God’s preferential option for the poor” (a phrase developed at a 1968 conference of Latin American Catholic bishops).110 Such a theology, which clearly has also influenced Pope Francis I (b. 1935), desires to understand the Christian faith on the basis of a commitment to the poor and the marginalized “from a point

108. Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, trans. James W. Leitch (London: SCM Press, 1967), 65. 109. For an excellent, brief introduction to this form of theology, see Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, trans. Paul Burns (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987). 110. See especially Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (London: SCM Press, 1973).

101

102

Fundamental Theology

of departure in real, effective solidarity with the exploited and the vulnerable.”111 In this way, too, liberation theology once again defines Christian theology primarily in relation to its practical end, similar to earlier definitions that stress theology as the study of practical, divine wisdom or that stress, as did Schleiermacher, its practical orientation toward the leadership of Christian communities.112 There are many other forms of contextual theology, including feminist, womanist, and queer theologies, which yearn to awaken people to the need for social and sexual justice, to uncover systems of oppression and repression, and to envision a new and better human, global community. These forms of theology are often grouped together as “revisionist theologies,” since they desire to re-vision God and reality in ways that will be beneficial to the world and to oppressed communities in it. Such theologies are critical of those biblical images for God and Christ that are perceived as contributing to Christian triumphalism and to the exploitation of people and the world. Revisionist theologians hope to find ways of lifting up biblical images and meanings that contribute to more humane patterns of life and toward healing, love, and justice in the world.113 Another significant example of revisionist theology is that done by so-called feminist theologians. Feminist theology stresses the importance of listening to nontraditional voices—especially those of women—which have been suppressed, oppressed, and often ignored in the history of Christianity.114 Feminist theologians argue that women bring a unique perspective to the theological task, one that is concerned about the role of women in church and society (e.g., by making arguments 111. Christopher Rowland, “Liberation Theology” (OHST, 635). 112. For a more recent accounting of Christian theology in a liberationist vein, see Rubén Rosario Rodrίguez, Dogmatics after Babel: Beyond the Theologies of Word and Culture (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2018). Rodrίguez criticizes dialectical, liberal, post-liberal, and other modern and postmodern forms of theology in favor of a “pneumatological” (Spirit-centered), liberationist approach, which favors theological diversity and the need to uphold human dignity and to work toward the emancipation of oppressed people. 113. Gordon Kaufman (1925–2011) is a further example of a “revisionist” theologian. He wanted to reform Christian theology to be more beneficial to human communities and to the global environment. Kaufman’s work underscores theology as a revisionist, imaginative, philosophical, constructive enterprise. Like Sallie McFague (b. 1933), who has acknowledged Kaufman’s influence upon her own work, Kaufman has striven to set forth a conception of God that moves beyond the biblical models and metaphors of “judge” and “king” to develop the notion of God as the ordered “creativity” that undergirds the universe. See, for example, Gordon Kaufman, God-Mystery-Diversity: Christian Theology in a Pluralistic World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); and his earlier work, Theology for a Nuclear Age (Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox, 1985). 114. For an introduction to the history and complexity of Christian feminist theology, see especially Rebecca Chopp and Sheila Davaney, eds., Horizons in Feminist Theology: Identity, Tradition and Norms (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997); Serene Jones, Feminist Theory and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000); and The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology, ed. Susan Frank Parsons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Traditions of Christian Theology

for the ordination of women to the priesthood or the pastoral office), about gender, about ecology, and about the transformation of theology itself to become truly liberating. Many of these theologians draw upon earlier theological reflections by female medieval mystics who also offered a contrasting understanding of God from male forms of thinking. While there is a great diversity of voices within feminist theology—one of its emphases is the welcoming of diversity—we will note just two, both Roman Catholics: Rosemary Radford Ruether (1936–2022) and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (b. 1938), who, along with many others, speak from within the church and who seek to renew and re-vision it as a true spiritual “community of equals.” These theologians also highlight practices that they contend will make for justice in both the church and the world.115 Similar to other theologians, they have been critical of traditional language about God as “Father” and about some theological categories that they view as demeaning to human beings (especially to women) and as contributing to the degradation of human community and the destruction of the planet.116 Within the North American context, the last half century has also witnessed theologians who have more or less reflected positions of the principal theologians from the first half of the century. Some generally reflect the positions of Tillich and Bultmann, namely, that academic theology must entail critical and self-critical reflection on the key symbols of the Christian faith. Other theologians generally reflect the position of Barth. Among those influenced by Tillich or who share his concern to relate theology to contemporary thought forms, one needs to note the important Roman Catholic thinkers Bernard Lonergan (1904–84), Hans Küng (1928–2021), and David Tracy (b. 1939). For them, if theology is to be an academic discipline in a university setting, it must adhere to well-established criteria for evidence, rational argumentation, and intelligibility, and to the philosophical position that matters of truth must correspond to reality. These are the same criteria that are used elsewhere in the university, especially in the modern natural and social sciences. The use of these criteria, external to Christian theology and its subject matter, does not necessarily provide theologians with a set of rules to follow but with a basic and normative “pattern of recurrent and related operations” (sensing, inquiring, imagining, understanding, formulating, judging, speaking, writing) that yield “cumulative and progressive results.”117 The challenge of this so-called “transcendental” or “metaphysical” method in theology is for the theologian to be “attentive, intelligent, reasonable, responsible,” and open to change.118 Within this approach, one’s understandings of the Bible and church 115. See Rosemary R. Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon, 1984); Rosemary R. Ruether, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1994). 116. See Sallie McFague, Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). 117. Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1972), 13–14. 118. Ibid., 14.

103

104

Fundamental Theology

traditions are always open to criticism from external sources and to the possibility that one’s theological understandings will have to be revised in light of other knowledge and experience. Thus, these theologies too may properly be described with the label “revisionist.” Tracy’s modification of Tillich’s method of correlation allows for the “mutualcritical correlation” between theology and the three main “publics” with which the theologian interacts (the church, society, and the academy). For Tracy, who has been especially influenced by Schleiermacher, Tillich, and Lonergan, the challenge for modern theologians, who are also informed by postmodern critiques of modernity, is to demonstrate the meaningful relevance of Christian theology for these publics, even while these theologians acknowledge the possibility of revising theology when such revision is called for in light of new knowledge and insights.119 Whatever good reasons the theologian has for setting forth the truth of Christian theology, those reasons must accord with norms that can be publicly verified. Truth must correspond to reality, it must be confirmed by experience and critical reflection, and it cannot be purely subjective. Theologians cannot simply appeal to traditional theological sources, especially the Bible, that are only accepted by the theologians themselves and their fellow believers. If theologians cannot provide persuasive reasons for their theological truth claims, which will stand up to public scrutiny, then the claims cannot be maintained, at least not in the public realm, that is, what David Tracy calls the “shared rational space where all participants, whatever their particular differences, can meet to discuss any claim that is rationally redeemable.”120 By contrast, other theologians stress the need for theology to have closer ties to traditional sources of theology and the church communities in which those theologies have originated and to be suspicious of “modern,” universal claims to truth. We may loosely label this other way of doing theology as “post-liberal,” since theologians in this group want to overcome the modern approaches to metaphysics and theology that have been classically defined by Kant and Schleiermacher. Post-liberal theologians, despite their differences, tend to stress the need to take the particularities of Christianity more seriously than has been the case in Protestant liberalism and other forms of revisionist theology. Many of the post-liberal theologians have been significantly influenced by Barth and, like him, they want the overall shape of the biblical narrative to have a priority in the theological task. Furthermore, they emphasize the intimate relationship between the biblical texts and the specific communities that read those sacred texts. These theologians thus tend to understand Christian theology completely (or mostly) within the cultural or semiotic system that constitutes Christianity as a distinct religion. They articulate 119. For a representative selection of essays by him, see David Tracy, Fragments: The Existential Situation of our Time (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020). 120. Tracy, “Theology, Critical Social Theory, and the Public Realm,” in Fragments, 241.

Traditions of Christian Theology

theology entirely (or mostly) according to the “grammar” or “internal logic” of “the Christian narrative,” as it is authoritatively given in the Bible and summarized in the classic creeds and confessions of the Christian churches. The method followed here is not transcendental or “universal” but quite specific to the internal “language” and “grammar” of the Christian faith that together form the self-description of Christian faith and practice. For an American example of this same type of theology, we can point to the work of the Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck (1923–2018), who also participated as an official Protestant observer at Vatican II and was involved in many other ecumenical encounters. He used anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s theory of culture to argue for the “absorption” of the universe by the overarching “scriptural world.”121 For Lindbeck and other post-liberal theologians, influenced especially by the theology of Barth, the challenge of Christian theologians is to maintain the orthodox identity and integrity of Christian teaching, especially in view of what they perceive to be false ways of knowing and living within other religious and secular worldviews. Of special concern is the need to articulate and defend the particular Christian narrative and how that narrative shapes the life of the Christian within the church and the academy. Some of Lindbeck’s students have thus modified his model so as to emphasize that the Scriptures, creeds, and authoritative doctrinal statements have a priority over all other forms of knowledge within the Christian worldview.122 Within the approach of Lindbeck and his followers, Christian truth is entirely a matter of “coherence” within the world of the Bible, of how Christian beliefs and practices are interconnected into an integrated and coherent whole that provides the overarching framework of meaning for individual Christians as well as their community of faith. Those who follow the post-liberal approach are less concerned to be relevant to the contemporary situation than they are to be faithful to what they perceive to be the true and correct understanding of God as it is given within the Christian Bible and orthodox tradition. The challenge of the theologian is to describe this particular “Christian worldview” that “shapes the entirety of life and thought.”123 One must first be clear about the Christian subject matter, its claims and assertions, and what 121. George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984). 122. See Bruce Marshall, Trinity and Truth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). As another post-liberal theologian, Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940), has argued, if the Christian theologian is going to engage any contemporary culture, it is best to know first what Christian doctrine and practices actually are and what they entail within the community of Christian faith. “The apologist of the past stood in the church and its tradition and sought relationship with those outside. Apologetic theology was a secondary endeavor because the apologist never assumed that one could let the questions of unbelief order the theological agenda” (Stanley Hauerwas, Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society [Minneapolis: Winston, 1985], 24). 123. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 33.

105

106

Fundamental Theology

these mean for one’s understanding of reality and reasoning, before one is in a proper position to engage theology within an academic setting of mutual interaction. The theologian must be concerned to understand and articulate a coherent Christian identity—one that is to be kept free from the influence of external criteria of rationality, evidence, and argumentation—before doing theology within any context, university or otherwise.

First century

Apostles of Jesus

Second century

Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Tertullian Cyprian Athanasius Augustine The Cappadocians John of Damascus Anselm of Canterbury Peter Abelard Bernard of Clairvaux Hildegard of Bingen Bonaventure Thomas Aquinas Julian of Norwich Catherine of Siena Martin Luther Philip Melanchthon John Calvin Teresa of Ávila Johann Gerhard Philipp Jakob Spener Jonathan Edwards Friedrich Schleiermacher Georg Hegel Johannes von Hofmann Albrecht Ritschl Adolf von Harnack Karl Barth Rudolf Bultmann Paul Tillich Dietrich Bonhoeffer Edmund Schlink Karl Rahner Gustavo Gutiérrez Rosemary Radford Ruether Wolfhart Pannenberg Oswald Bayer

Second/third centuries

Fourth century

Seventh/eighth centuries Eleventh/twelfth centuries

Thirteenth century

Fourteenth/fifteenth centuries Sixteenth century

Seventeenth century Eighteenth century Nineteenth century

Twentieth century

Figure 2.1  Key Christian theologians.

Traditions of Christian Theology

In this context, we need to note the importance of several conservative “evangelical” theologians whose thinking is shaped by classic Protestant themes (primarily Calvinist in character). In this setting the term evangelical has a broader meaning from the one I noted earlier in connection with Melanchthon’s sixteenthcentury definition. While contemporary evangelical theology also accepts that earlier definition (“oriented toward the good news about Jesus”), it goes beyond it to include several fundamental emphases regarding a particular kind of lived Christianity. Here the focus is on supporting a personal relationship with God that manifests itself in a life of faithful obedience to God’s revealed will. Similar to Barth’s form of evangelical theology, this type of theology arises primarily from the interpretation of Scripture, in an effort to understand what the biblical authors intended their original audience to understand through their inspired writings. What the Bible meant is still what it generally ought to mean for the Christian of today. Contemporary evangelical theologians, who often come from Baptist or at least pious Protestant backgrounds, thus stress that the Bible provides a coherent worldview and a coherent set of beliefs that are to be taught and accepted by faith. Some evangelical theologians, such as the American Baptist scholar Stanley Grenz (1950–2005) and the Northern Irish Anglican professor Alister McGrath (b. 1953), have been deeply influenced by post-liberal theology. For Grenz, theology “systematizes, explores, and orders the community symbols and concepts into a unified whole—that is, into a systematic conceptual framework.”124 In Grenz’s view, the believing community of Christians is foundational for the correct understanding of the theological task.125 Theology must serve the believing community of Christians and their living piety within that community. To assist that task, contemporary theologians must learn from the classic theologians of the past, those who have worked out orthodox understandings of biblical teaching. Only after gaining clarity about “the biblical message” should theologians seek to understand the contemporary context in which people live and think and to take that context into account when communicating the biblical message to those people. While evangelical theologians must be aware of the challenges that the contemporary world presents to classic doctrines of the Christian faith, they must always also allow the biblical message to have priority and authority when addressing those challenges faithfully and adequately.126 124. Stanley Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 78. 125. For a good overview of Grenz’s theology and other contemporary evangelical theologians, see Mary M. Veeneman, Introducing Theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 81–110. 126. For Grenz’s evangelical approach to the Christian faith, see his large book, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). After examining the nature and task of theology, Grenz sets forth traditional understandings of basic Christian teachings about God, human beings, christology, the Holy Spirit,

107

108

Fundamental Theology

One very important theologian who does not fit neatly into either the “correlationalist” or the “post-liberal” camp was the Lutheran ecumenist Edmund Schlink (1903–84). A student of Barth’s and a defender of the Barmen Declaration, Schlink was a leading figure in the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, and he served as the official representative of the German Protestant Church at the Second Vatican Council.127 As a result of his many decades of ecumenical work and university teaching, he produced a basic summary of the Christian faith that brings both Eastern and Western traditions of theology into conversation with each other for the sake of establishing greater unity between them. But he was also concerned about the question of theological truth in relation to all other truths discovered by sense experience and human reasoning. Schlink thus encouraged interdisciplinary dialogue at his university, especially with the natural sciences.128 Similar to Hofmann’s approach toward “salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte), and in opposition to existentialist theologies, Schlink hoped that by focusing on “the mighty deeds of God,” he could help the separated churches to move closer toward visible unity. According to Schlink, In this world situation, God expects the church to be the sign of his love and the example of human coexistence. According to the words from Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer, it is Christ’s will that believers should come to the fullness of unity so that the world would know that God sent him and has given his love to human beings even as he has given it to him, the Son.129

In explicating and explaining the deeds that God has done in history and is doing as Creator, Redeemer, and New Creator, Schlink’s dogmatics underscores that theology is ultimately about praising the triune God.130 Finally, we may note two additional theologians who do not line up with either the revisionists or the post-liberals: Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–2014) and Oswald Bayer the church, and eschatology (“last things”). McGrath, who had been an atheist, and who underwent a conversion to Christianity, is one of the most prolific evangelical theologians of the past half century. See, for example, his widely used college textbook, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 2016). 127. For his critical reflections on Vatican II, see Edmund Schlink, After the Council, in ESW, 1.337–536. In the years before and after Vatican II, Schlink was a leading member of a group of German Catholic and Lutheran professors who met regularly for theological dialogue. Over four decades, he delivered more papers in this setting than any other theologian. 128. Matthew L. Becker, “Christ in the University: The Vision of Schlink,” The Cresset 80 (Easter 2017): 12–21. 129. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.70. 130. Cf. Schlink, “Theology as Doxology,” Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.155–7. See also my chapter, “Edmund Schlink: Ecumenical Theology,” in Generous Orthodoxies: Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology, ed. Paul Silas Petersen (Eugene: Pickwick, 2020), 23–41. For a very similar approach to Christian teaching, see also Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997–9). Jenson, who had studied under Schlink, subtitled his second volume, “The Works of God.”

Traditions of Christian Theology

(b. 1939). Pannenberg, who completed his two doctorates under Schlink’s direction, sought to return Christian theology to earlier, classical understandings that focus strictly on “talking of God” and “thinking of God.”131 For this reason Pannenberg called upon all Christian theologians to be concerned with theology’s proper object, namely, God. Hearkening back to classic definitions articulated by Aquinas and Gerhard, he defined theology as “the science of God,” which he insisted must first and foremost be about “the truth” regarding the reality of God on the basis of language that God himself has authorized within Scripture.132 According to Pannenberg, “Talk about God that is grounded in humanity, in human needs and interests, or as an expression of human ideas about divine reality, would not be theology. It would simply be a product of human imagination.”133 The truth of Christian teaching must therefore be the central theme of Christian theology. Pannenberg was thus critical of existentialist and contextual theologies that take their cues from human experience and needs, including human desires for political and social justice. He also criticized what he perceived to be mistaken notions of social and political utopianism that have entered into the theologies of some liberation, feminist, and revisionist theologians. For Pannenberg, human political and social liberation cannot be conflated with divine redemption, and human beings cannot be reduced to mere political and social creatures. Christians who engage in such utopianism can lose sight of the truth of the gospel, and they can also underestimate the corrupted and sinful condition of the world. For this theological reason, liberation from unjust social-political systems cannot be equated with liberation into the kingdom of Christ. For Pannenberg, as long as Christians and their communities live in this fallen world, they live among “the principalities and powers” (Eph. 6.12) that can corrupt all ideologies and institutions, including the church. Moreover, in Pannenberg’s view, to understand theology as an imaginative enterprise plays right into the criticism of the atheist Feuerbach, who judged all theologies to be instances of mere projection of human needs onto God and thus merely matters of creative illusion. If that were the case, then all human talk of God is only just that—human talk. Consequently, Pannenberg insisted that Christian theology must maintain the Greek theological ideal of criticism, especially when one detects false thinking within the discipline. In this way, too, theology is not primarily a practical discipline but a theoretical one that aspires to give a truthful, faithful, coherent, and comprehensive understanding of God and other theological topics. 131. From Schlink, Pannenberg also learned the importance of ecumenical and interdisciplinary dialogue. 132. Pannenberg had already made this point clear in his essay, “What Is a Dogmatic Statement?,” in Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 1, trans. George H. Kehm (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 182–210, esp. 201–2 and 206–7. 133. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vols, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991–8), 1.7.

109

110

Fundamental Theology

Oswald Bayer has also been critical of the recent transformation of theology into a human-centered, political, and social enterprise, but he resists Pannenberg’s position that theology is only oriented to “true discourse about God” rather than also to human existence and the world. Bayer argues that Luther’s modification of Aquinas’s definition more adequately encompasses the fullness of theological reflection. Christian theology is not merely about how the revelation of God’s mercy and love are revealed in and through the gospel concerning Jesus, but it is also about how (sinful) human beings are revealed and exposed for who they are in the contrasting revelations of God’s law and gospel.134 Christian theology cannot speculate about how God is “in God,” for God’s own being remains hidden from human beings. But it can examine God on the basis of how God is self-giving and known in relation to human beings through the divine revelations of law and gospel that lead to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Bayer thus insists, as did Luther and Schlink, on the priority and externality of God’s mighty deeds in history for us and our salvation in relation to the apostolic witness to Christ. He also insists, in a way reminiscent of Bultmann, that Christian theology is also about human beings in light of the word of God, about divine speech and faith, and not merely an attempt to understand God. In this way, too, Bayer’s theology shares similarities with the concerns of all contextual theologies (liberation theology, feminist theology), namely, that theology is never merely talking of God in isolation from reality or even social reality, but always involves speaking of God in relation to other matters, such as creation, human beings, human communities, and the world as a whole. Bayer thus stresses Luther’s (and Ebeling’s) point that Christian theology is never just about God: it is about the God who justifies sinful humanity through the cross of Christ and about sinful human beings who need to be so justified.

Questions for review and discussion 1. Which culture coined the term theology? What did the term originally mean? How did Plato and Aristotle differ regarding the purpose of theology? How were their respective views of theology similar? Who are those Christian theologians who most closely reflect the critical spirit of Plato and Aristotle? 2. Why were most early Christians opposed to the use of the term theologia? Who was the first Christian to use the term favorably? How did he understand the term Logos in relation to Greek philosophy? 134. See especially Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, ed. and trans. Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

Traditions of Christian Theology

















3. Tertullian and Origen understood Christian theology very differently. What are the strengths and weaknesses of their respective approaches to theology? Do you agree with Tertullian’s position that Christians really cannot learn much, if anything, from pagan, secular thinkers? Tertullian asked, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” His answer: “Nothing!” He held that “Athens” (i.e., Greek philosophy) has nothing to do with “Jerusalem” (i.e., divine revelation). Do you agree with him on this point? That Christians really have nothing positive to learn from “secular thinkers,” that “secular reasoning” (e.g., scientific knowledge) gets in the way of “Christian faith?” Or do you align more with Origen’s position that sought a synthesis between “truths” from multiple sources? 4. How did Anselm of Canterbury define the nature of Christian theology? How is this similar to Augustine’s? How are their respective understandings different? Do you think a person must be a believer in Christ in order to do theology in the way of Anselm and Augustine (“faith seeking understanding”)? Why or why not? 5. The chapter identifies several female theologians within the Christian tradition. How are their respective ways of doing theology different from some of the other theologians discussed in the chapter? Do you think men and women do theology differently from each other? Why or why not? 6. Why was Martin Luther critical of medieval scholastic theology? What did he think the proper goal of theology is? Do you agree with Luther that Christian theology is very different from philosophical theology? Or are you more inclined to agree with Aquinas and Johann Gerhard that philosophy ought to assist the Christian theologian? What might be some weaknesses of each of these approaches? 7. How did later theologians change the nature of academic theology from the definition that was given it by Johann Gerhard? More specifically, how are Aquinas’s and Gerhard’s definitions of theology different from Schleiermacher’s initial practical understanding? How did Schleiermacher’s later understanding return to a position closer to Aquinas and Gerhard? 8. What is the basis of theology, according to Barth? What was Elert’s principal criticism of Barth’s theology? How might his criticism of Barth reflect similar concerns by Rahner, Tillich, and Bayer? For example, where does each of these theologians see the starting point of Christian theology? 9. Based on the brief descriptions of Tillichian “revisionist” theology (Tracy) and Barthian “post-liberal” theology (Schlink, Lindbeck), which approach do you think is better suited to a college context today? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these two differing approaches to theology? 10. Pannenberg has been critical of feminist theologians and all others who see theology as including also “talk about human beings.” Contextual theologians

111

112

Fundamental Theology

have been critical of Pannenberg’s approach, since he wants to limit theology strictly to “the science of God” (hearkening back to Aquinas). Which side of this argument is more persuasive to you? Why?

Suggestions for further reading Brief introductions to ancient Greek theology and philosophical theology Hubert Cancik, “Theologia,” RPP, 12.608–10. Edward Craig, “Metaphysics,” REP, 567–70. Kevin Flannery, “Ancient Philosophical Theology,” BCPR, 73–9. Rainer Enskat, “Metaphysics,” RPP, 8.307–10.

Brief introductions to ancient Jewish theology Berndt Schaller, Andreas Lindemann, Michael A. Meyer, and Michael Beintker, “Judaism and Christianity,” RPP, 7.69–5. Seth Schwartz, Andreas Gotzmann, and Michael A. Meyer, “Judaism,” RPP, 7.58–69.

Brief introductions to Christian theology Yves Congar, “Christian Theology,” ER, 14.455–64. Adrian Hastings, “Theology,” OCCT, 700–2. Eilert Herms, “Dogmatics I–II: History and Systematic Theology,” RPP, 4.141–51. Ulrich Köpf, “Theology, History/Historiography of,” RPP, 12.646–50. Dietz Lange, “Dogmatics III: Glaubenslehre [Doctrine of the Faith],” RPP, 4.151–2. Ian Markham, “Theology,” BCSR, 152–67. John Michael Owen, “Theology,” EC, 5.363–70. Christoph Schwöbel, “Christianity IV: Systematic Theology,” RPP, 2.592–602. Christoph Schwöbel, “Theology,” RPP, 12.617–46.

Reference works in the philosophy of religion and Christian theology Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 9 vols (New York: Image, 2005). [Exhaustive historical narrative of the principal figures and movements—and many less well-known ones—by an Oxford Jesuit scholar.] Edward Craig, ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 10 vols (New York: Routledge, 2000). [A standard reference work.] Martin Davie, Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell, and T. A. Noble, eds., New Dictionary of Theology, 2nd edn (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016). [A principal dictionary of Christian theology with entries by mainstream evangelical Christian scholars.]

Traditions of Christian Theology

Donald McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, 2nd, rev. edn (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2014). [A standard reference work for theological words and concepts.] Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell, eds., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018). [Updated classic reference work in Evangelical Christian theology.]

Philosophy for theology students Diogenes Allen and Eric O. Springsted, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 2nd edn (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). [Engaging analysis from Plato to postmodernism by two theologians who favor a post-liberal approach to Christian theology.] C. Stephen Evans, A History of Western Philosophy: From the Pre-Socratics to Postmodernism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018). [Written by a leading evangelical Christian philosopher, this work provides a helpful overview of Western philosophy through the end of the nineteenth century.] Derek Johnston, A Brief History of Philosophy: From Socrates to Derrida (New York: Continuum, 2006). [This is a very good place for the beginning student to start.] Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1945). [Despite its flawed and quite superficial understanding of the origins of Christianity, this one-volume analytical narrative history of Western philosophy by a major twentieth-century thinker remains a classic.] William A. Wallace, The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012). [An engaging overview of Thomistic philosophy by a major Roman Catholic scholar.]

Metaphysics and philosophical theology Earl Conee and Theodore Sider, Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). [A very readable introduction to the difficult questions of metaphysics. Good bibliographies.] Eddie L. Miller, God and Reason: An Invitation to Philosophical Theology, 2nd edn (New York: Pearson, 1994). [A very readable introduction to the principal issues in the philosophy of religion.]

Ancient Jewish theology Eric Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002). [This book offers a good overview of the history of Judaism from the time of Alexander the Great to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70.]

113

114

Fundamental Theology

Steven Kepnes, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020). [An excellent overview of the main currents of ancient, medieval, and modern Jewish theology. Helpful bibliographies accompany each chapter.] Evan Moffic, What Every Christian Needs to Know about Judaism (Nashville: Abingdon, 2020). [Rabbi Moffic provides a very readable investigation of the religious roots that Jews and Christians hold in common.]

On the history of Christian theology Matthew L. Becker, ed., Nineteenth-Century Lutheran Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016). [Provides an overview and assessment of sixteen Protestant theologians and philosophers, including Schleiermacher, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Hofmann.] Sheila Briggs and Mary McClintock, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). [Offers insightful entries on key topics in feminist theology.] David Ford, ed., The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the Twentieth Century, 3rd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005). [Major survey of relatively recent theologians and theological movements.] Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, rev. edn (Nashville: Abingdon, 2014). [Helpful, easy-to-read account of the history of Christian theology from the time of the apostles until the end of the twentieth century by a Methodist scholar.] Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, 7 vols, trans. Neil Buchanan (New York: Dover, 1961). [The classic “liberal Protestant” treatment of the development of Christian teaching in the early centuries of Christianity. Harnack was the major twentiethcentury scholar of early Christianity. He has set the standard for subsequent scholars.] Derek Johnston, A Brief History of Theology: From the New Testament to Feminist Theology (New York: Continuum, 2009). [This is a good place to start before trying to tackle any of the multivolumes listed here.] Gareth Jones, ed., The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology (New York: WileyBlackwell, 2007). [An excellent reference work that provides overviews and analysis of the principal figures and movements in modern Christian systematic theology.] Mark C. Mattes, ed., Twentieth-Century Lutheran Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). [Provides an overview and assessment of fourteen important Protestant theologians in the past century. The book includes chapters on Schlink, Bonhoeffer, and Ebeling, as well as figures who are not addressed in this present chapter.] Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012). [A good one-volume survey of the main Christian theologians and theological movements by a major evangelical Protestant theologian from Britain.]

Traditions of Christian Theology

Chad V. Meister and James K. Beilby, eds., The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought (New York: Routledge, 2013). [Provides helpful perspectives on modern Christian movements and groups; less focused on individual theologians.] David Ngong, ed., A New History of African Christian Thought: From Cape to Cairo (New York: Routledge, 2017). [With chapters by leading scholars of African Christianity, this book provides a very good introduction to the course of Christian thought on that continent from antiquity to the present era.] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971–89). [This major work helps to correct Harnack’s lack of attention to the liturgical life of early and medieval Christian communities and their spiritual traditions.] Paul Silas Petersen, Generous Orthodoxies: Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020). [Helpful introductions to key theologians of the past half century.] Svein Rise and Staale Johannes Kristiansen, eds., Key Theological Thinkers: From Modern to Postmodern (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013). [This work is divided into sections that cover more than fifty influential twentieth-century Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians from Europe and North America.] Eve Tibbs, A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology: Introducing Beliefs and Practices (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021). [An excellent introduction to Eastern traditions of Christian theology by a Greek Orthodox theologian who teaches at an evangelical Protestant seminary.] Linwood Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought, 2nd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). [Succinct, well-written account of key issues in the history of Christian thinking. A good intermediate text after Johnston or McGrath.] Mary M. Veeneman, Introducing Theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017). [An informative overview of the principal types of Christian theology from the past century. Includes chapters on dialectical, correlational, post-liberal, evangelical, political, feminist, and comparative theologies. This brief volume is the best place to begin one’s study of the basic types of contemporary Christian theology.]

Online resources for the study of Christian theology (see the entries at the end of Chapter 1)

115

3 What Is Christian Theology? This chapter defines the nature and purpose of Christian theology as an academic discipline in an undergraduate university setting. Christian theology is a discipline that invites critical and self-critical reflection on the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. Such reflection takes into account how this revelation has been understood and believed by Christian communities over the past two millennia and how it ought to be understood in light of contemporary knowledge from other disciplines in the university. The goal of this reflection is fourfold: (1) to understand the content of this witness clearly in light of the history of Christianity and the knowledge from other university disciplines, (2) to consider the nature of Christian faith as trust in the gospel promise given within this witness, (3) to identify weak or faulty understandings of the witness, and (4) to appropriate the truth and wisdom in the witness.

We have seen that perhaps the most common form of Christian theology takes place within an individual’s life and immediate relationships. This type of informal theology is often, though not always, connected to activities within specific Christian communities or churches, such as praying, preaching, singing, and meditating. A person’s “confession of faith” or “practice of faith” is also a kind of rudimentary theology that might occasionally issue forth in deeper reflection. In this religious context such thinking tends to be more informal than the kind that pays scholarly attention to academic theology and its history. While some Christians might be skeptical about the latter because they perceive that it could call their faith into question and make them uncomfortable, all Christians still tend to hold some reflective understandings of their faith, even if these are generally guided by deference to external authorities, such as the Bible and/or church leaders. To the extent that such individuals investigate academic theology, they do so primarily for the sake of discerning whatever practical wisdom it might provide them for living their lives. In general, however, most Christians get their theology from nonacademic sources (e.g., social media, television, popular devotional writings and music, etc.).

What Is Christian Theology?

The kind of Christian theology surveyed in Chapter 2 is more formal and can be identified as academic theology. While people have defined this discipline differently over the past two millennia, a common concern among these representative theologians has been to offer an ordered account of Christian teachings, usually for the sake of educating church leaders or for the purpose of serving as a resource for those who practice the arts of ministry. In this context, students typically study theology as a formal discipline within an academic institution that is often, though not always, operated by a particular church body or consortium of churches. Such theology tends to be primarily practical and parochial (i.e., aimed at parish church life). In other words, it is an activity of and for the church since it examines the church’s actual proclamation and teaching in relation to the original authorities for Christian proclamation (the apostolic writings found in the NT and the central writings of the OT) and in light of human knowledge and experience. While Schleiermacher’s practical rationale for Christian theology as a university discipline has had a tremendous impact on the development of theological education over the past two centuries, it has been used by some Christians to defend the position that Christian theology cannot really be done well or faithfully within a modern university and thus should be located only within church-related, independent, praxis-oriented academic institutions, such as Bible colleges and seminaries. Others agree, but for different reasons. Some hold that a university should only include those disciplines that are able to study data empirically through mathematical models of inquiry that quantify their results. In this view theology (not to mention the other disciplines in the humanities and the arts) does not fit such an empirical model, and so it should be excluded or at least marginalized in the pursuit of truth and understanding. Certainly such a secular position toward theology has contributed to its marginalization in many universities, and even its full exclusion from others, over the past four hundred years.1 Both the sectarian view, namely, that Christian theology can only be properly done within a church-related school or seminary, and the secularist view, namely, that Christian theology does not belong among the university disciplines, are contrary to the nature of academic theology itself. Certainly, academic theology is different from physics or even other disciplines within the humanities, but it has an abiding part to play in the pursuit of truth and understanding, and thus it belongs within 1. For earlier accounts of the secularization of American institutions of higher education, see especially George Marsden, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); and James T. Burtchaell, The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from their Christian Churches (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Both of these studies show how many American colleges and universities, which were founded by Christians and had historically propagated Christian teaching, eventually abandoned their connections to Christianity in favor of a purely Enlightenment-based quest for truth.

117

118

Fundamental Theology

a university. To dismiss academic theology, merely because its object of study and the means of studying that object are different from the natural and social sciences is short-sighted. Such a dismissal neglects or at least diminishes the contribution that the study of Christian theology could make to the cultivation of wisdom and understanding among all university students, even among those who might have serious questions and doubts about the object of Christian theology. Moreover, academic theology is too important to relegate solely to seminaries or church-related schools aimed at educating future church leaders. Within the setting of a liberal arts university, Christian theology invites Christian and non-Christian undergraduate students alike to examine Christian ideas, institutions, and history in a properly theological manner. What is Christian faith? How has it informed people’s actions over the past two millennia? What does it mean to investigate that faith critically in relation to other academic disciplines? Might one be able to appropriate its possible truth, wisdom, and insights beyond the church as well as within it? In an undergraduate setting, theology relates more broadly to the human sciences and more specifically to the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of science, and religious studies, without necessarily being completely subsumed under any one of these other disciplines or their methods of investigation. Thus, theology strives to articulate and understand the unique character of that which it studies and the manner in which that object remains open to investigation. Undergraduate students of theology will also pursue interdisciplinary work, research, and dialogue with other fields of study, something that is taking place in nearly all academic areas today—from physics, law, medicine, biology, and ecology to history, education, and the humanities. The study of theology in a university setting can inspire and equip students to participate more fully in such interdisciplinary dialogue, whatever their primary academic field may be. In this same context, Christian theology contributes to the human search for truth and the human pursuit of social and global justice. Cultivating the pursuit of such wisdom and truth within specific religions, including Christianity, must remain an open question for all who are seeking higher education. The institutional context in which Christian theology is done affects its nature and form. How one undertakes theology in a Bible college or a church-related seminary will be different from how it is undertaken in the context of a modern, Western, liberal arts university (either church-related or not) or in a state college or university (whose faculty’s academic freedom is limited constitutionally on matters relating to the study of religions and religious ideas) or in an ecumenical divinity school. One may thus define the academic discipline of theology in an undergraduate context as follows: Christian theology is (1) a university discipline that invites (2) critical and self-critical reflection (3) on the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic

What Is Christian Theology?

witness to Jesus Christ, (4) as that revelation has been understood and believed in the churches over time, (5) in order (a) to understand the content of that witness clearly within the ecumenical and intellectual situation of the present, (b) to consider the nature of Christian faith as trust in the gospel promise given within this witness, (c) to identify weak or even faulty understandings of the witness itself or within later developments, and (d) to appropriate the possible truth and wisdom within the witness.

Because this definition is open to misunderstanding, a few comments about each main part of it are in order. (1) Christian theology is a university discipline. As such, it does not belong exclusively within the province of the church or institutions operated by Christians, but neither is it unrelated to communities of Christian faith that are located outside of the academy. Christian theology as a university discipline overlaps both the academy and communities of Christians. Usually located in the arts-and-sciences faculty of a university, it is a subdiscipline of the humanities, either alongside or within religious studies, although it also has an important relation to all other academic disciplines. Indeed, Christian theology is most vital when it is in dialogue with philosophy, the humanities, and the sciences in the common pursuit of clarifying the goods of human life. Christian theology deserves careful, critical attention within the broad discipline of the humanities. The question of religious truth remains an important question for billions of people today, and the impact of the Christian tradition and Christian humanism on the development of human culture, including its theological dimension, is worthy of continued study. Furthermore, Christian theology deserves to be better understood than it currently is throughout academia and in the larger Western culture, precisely because of its huge influence on the development of that culture. As Don Browning states, “We should study this Christian heritage because it is in our bones— even the bones of the unbeliever—in ways we often do not understand. It comes down to this: we cannot understand ourselves unless we understand what historical forces have shaped us, and Christianity is certainly one of those central influences.”2 Aside from the historical influence of religion, the theologian will continually inquire about the truth of theology. There might very well be more to “what is” than “what is known.”3 The question regarding religious truth, moreover, will be better addressed if one attends closely to past and present theological and philosophical understandings within the academy. Insofar as members of the university community 2. Don S. Browning, Reviving Christian Humanism: The New Conversation on Spirituality, Theology, and Psychology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 2. 3. A similar point is made by the philosopher Roy Bhaskar and other “critical realists.” See Andrew Collier, Critical Realism (London: Verso, 1993).

119

120

Fundamental Theology

are concerned with knowledge as an end in itself, “The university is at the very least obliged to pay attention also to the knowledge of [the theological] dimension of its subject matter.”4 To be sure, some might agree that Christian theology is an academic discipline but insist that it should be studied only in a graduate or professional school or in a seminary, whose principal purpose is the cultivation of practical knowledge and vocational skills for the already-committed religious believer. The position argued for here, however, is that Christian theology ought to be studied also by undergraduate students, even by those who are not Christian, since knowledge of human life, history, culture, and society will be radically incomplete without explicit attention to the religious dimension of these realities and the equally necessary task of understanding this dimension theologically and not merely in reductionist ways and categories that lead to the bracketing out of theology and questions about the truth of its subject matter. Thus, the above definition of theology broadens the circle in which the Christian faith is examined critically, beyond the specific communities in which it is primarily a church-related practical activity. Christian theology must take into account knowledge and research from the wider academic community, especially knowledge that overlaps with matters that are also studied in Christian theology, in order not only to avoid falsehood and ignorance, but also in order to provide a theological perspective on these same matters that is relevant, informed, and self-critical. In this way, Christian theology looks for conceptual clarity through rational methods of inquiry, invites critical dialogue with the other university disciplines, and avoids sectarianism and isolation from the larger academic community and its intellectual ideals. In this respect, too, the issue of academic freedom is also important to theology. So Christian theology invites comparison with other theological and religious traditions, and it fosters intentional theological dialogue between people of different religions about the basic questions that religious traditions address: What is the nature of reality? What, if anything, is wrong with human beings and their situation in the world? How does this religious tradition address or respond to that problem or set of problems? Dialogue about these and other basic questions of theology need not lead to the conclusion “that all religions are basically the same” (thus flattening them out and shaping them into something of one’s own making), or that “my religion is the only one that has all the truth,” or that “we can never understand the truth claims asserted by someone from a religion different from our own.” Real interreligious dialogue presupposes a respectful openness toward people who believe and behave differently from oneself, a readiness to share one’s own convictions about theological truth, and a willingness to learn from the other. One can listen to and even understand the truth claims of others, risking that one’s own theological understanding might 4. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Idea of the University: A Reexamination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 40.

What Is Christian Theology?

grow and change as a result of conversation with the other, even if one might think at the outset that, at least for the time being, one’s own present understanding is closer to “the real truth.” (2) Christian theology is a university discipline that invites critical and selfcritical reflection. The use of the term critical here implies the full range of meanings that the original Greek word (krinō) had, from which the English word derives.5 “Critical reflection” involves “thinking about” and “considering” the Christian faith and its traditions, “passing judgment upon” and “criticizing” it, if necessary, and repeatedly “coming to a conclusion” in light of one’s ongoing considerations.6 Such an understanding hearkens back to the ideals of Plato and Aristotle, whose philosophical criticism of Greek religion was undertaken in service to truth about God and reality, but it is also consistent with classic forms of Christian theology. Despite differences in their definitions, nearly all Christian theologians agree that theology involves critical inquiry into Christian origins, contemporary theological reflection on human beings and their experiences, analysis of the Christian confession of faith in God, and the articulation of Christian practical wisdom. As noted in the previous chapter, a key way of capturing this intimate connection between faith and critical inquiry is the phrase, “faith seeking understanding,” an approach that has been given classic form in the writings of Augustine and Anselm and that has been defended by many theologians throughout the history of Christianity. In the words of Barth, “The special task of theology is a critical one … Theology has to reconsider the confession of the community, testing and rethinking it in the light of its enduring foundation, object, and content … What distinguishes faith from blind assent is just its special character as ‘faith seeking understanding.’ ”7 More recently, Daniel Migliore rightly asks, “How could we ever be finished with the quest for a deeper understanding of God? What would be the likely result if we lacked the courage to ask, Do I rightly know who God is and what God wills?”8 Christian theology thus invites people to question, investigate, explain, and perhaps criticize the Christian faith and its traditions. Clearly, the discipline is thus inherently hermeneutical (from a Greek word meaning “to interpret”). In other words, theology entails the processes by which one understands and interprets its subject matter, whose primary sources, specialized language and concepts, and historical development comprise material that is temporally distant. To assist in this process of understanding, theology makes use of the best scholarly tools for the investigation of the Christian faith and its traditions, and gives serious attention to the claims to truth and wisdom that are made within those traditions. It engages the most serious 5. OED, 364. 6. BDAG, 567–8. 7. Barth, Evangelical Theology, 42–3 (emphasis in original). 8. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 2.

121

122

Fundamental Theology

criticisms of those traditions and fosters an openness toward dialogue on matters of mutual concern with the other university disciplines, especially the humanities and the social and natural sciences. Such hermeneutical, critical reflection may involve a “process of disenchantment” with respect to that which is studied, and even its total negation (atheism), although one ought to be aware that many who engage in critical reflection upon their faith and that of others often discover that their own faith has deepened as a result of their inquiries.9 Still, one needs to acknowledge from the start that theology involves risk to one’s self-understanding. Precisely because of this threat, some students might experience anxiety about the discipline, especially if they are fearful that they might lose their own faith or be disturbed by knowledge that might call their particular understanding of faith into question. This risk makes theology similar to philosophy, though perhaps different from most other academic subjects whose object does not directly impact one’s self-knowledge and worldview. The existential relationship between the student and the object of Christian theological study can be uncomfortable, especially in light of the possibility that one’s faith or worldview, whether secular or religious, might need to be revised. This reflection on worldviews or faiths, whether one’s own or those of others, which the study of theology initiates, may threaten, even shatter, one’s personal equilibrium, but the promise of theology is that those who engage in such reflection again and again discover that their own earlier understanding has deepened into a new equilibrium, in what Paul Ricoeur calls “a second naiveté.”10 Christian theology thus invites students to be self-critical in light of the subject matter of theology, to be open to new insights and criticisms that theology itself might present to the student and to others, and to be more aware of one’s religious presuppositions and prejudices and how they themselves might be in need of revision in light of what is uncovered in the discipline and in related scholarly fields. Jaroslav Pelikan states:

9. For a classic defense of science as a process of intellectualization and disenchantment, see Max Weber (1864–1920), “Science as a Vocation” (1922), in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. and trans. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 129–56. Of course, my argument for the place of theology in a university curriculum runs directly counter to Weber’s criticism and dismissal of that discipline. While I agree with him that a professor’s lectern is not the place for prophecy or demagoguery, a teacher in the humanities cannot avoid thinking with students about how one “takes a stand” and what that “practical standpoint” (to use Weber’s phrases) could fruitfully be with respect to “meaning,” ultimate commitments, moral values, and the basic human question raised by Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) and others: “What shall we do and how shall we live?” Is it wrong to point out how an antihuman ideology overtook all of the sciences in German universities a little more than a decade after Weber delivered that essay (which, in places, betrays the anti-Semitism that was rampant in German society at that time)? 10. Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, 351.

What Is Christian Theology?

By its very nature, of course, the knowledge and scholarly study of faith can be not only controversial but contagious: it can lead lifelong believers to surrender cherished tenets of faith, or it can engage students existentially in such a way that, having come to observe and criticize, they remain to pray. The university must not pretend that either of these outcomes cannot happen within its walls; nor should it, in its care for its members as human beings, dismiss such concerns as trivial.11

Moreover, the study of Christian traditions and faith need not necessarily be undertaken by one who is a scholarly outsider to that tradition and faith, as if only a non-Christian or a nonreligious person or one who is not committed to a given tradition could provide a careful, accurate description and an objective analysis of the Christian tradition. In fact, scholars of differing religions who lack any religious convictions cannot avoid being committed to some kind of tradition: for example, the Enlightenment tradition that aspires to scholarly neutrality and objectivity. Yet this tradition, too, has been shown to be prone to illusion and distortion.12 Commitment to the religious tradition one is studying need not disqualify one from engaging that tradition critically, carefully, and rigorously. Christian theology holds out the promise that students of theology might even be surprised when their critical inquiry into the Christian faith and its traditions results in a deeper understanding of God, a greater appreciation of their considered faith, and a posture in which they are grateful for new insights into divine wisdom. (3) Christian theology is a university discipline that invites critical and self-critical reflection on the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. A key presupposition of Christian theology is the self-revelation of God in and through the traditions of ancient Israel and the prophetic and apostolic witness to Jesus of Nazareth. As Pannenberg rightly underscored, the “knowledge of God that is made possible by God, and therefore by revelation, is one of the basic conditions of the concept of theology as such. Otherwise the possibility of the knowledge of God is logically inconceivable; it would contradict the very idea  of God.”13 According to the central figures within the Christian theological tradition, divine revelation is the principal source of all Christian theological knowledge and provides the basis for the response of faith. Thus, the revelation of God, which both non-Christians (at least in a fragmentary, perhaps distorted, manner) and Christians have received, serves as the subject of theology, since God cannot be studied directly or unambiguously. The basis for knowledge of God is God’s own self-giving. Yet God’s own self-giving is properly received only in faith (“trust,” “confidence”). Such faith is indeed an actual phenomenon that could be studied critically by 11. Pelikan, The Idea of the University, 40. 12. One of the abiding claims of postmodern critiques of “modernity” is that all scholars are biased and prejudiced, often in ways they themselves do not perceive. 13. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.2.

123

124

Fundamental Theology

examining Christian biblical documents, Christian confessions of faith, the history of Christian theological reflection, Christian accounts of basic human experiences, and Christian engagement with other religions, including their documents and confessional writings. Nevertheless, while Christian theology investigates the nature and basis of Christian faith and seeks to clarify its meaning for people today, faith in and of itself is not the proper object of theological investigation. The proper object of theological study—as Bultmann and Pannenberg have rightly stressed in their differing ways—must be faith in God, as it is properly grounded in the witness to the gospel conveyed by the proclamation of God’s word. Thus, the question and meaning of God must remain central to the critical inquiry of Christian theology, even if theology cannot avoid paying attention to the nature, form, and content of the Christian faith in God as revealed in and through ancient Israel and Jesus. Theology, if it is Christian theology, examines the claims that are made about Jesus of Nazareth, especially the claim that he is the promised Christ or Messiah of God in whom there is salvation. Such an inquiry begins with the questions, “Who or what is a ‘Christ’?” What does it mean to call Jesus “the Christ of God?” What does it mean to speak of God on the basis of Jesus? What does Jesus reveal about God? What is the salvation to which the revelation of God in and through Jesus bears witness? These are the fundamental presuppositional questions that make theology “Christian.” These questions have their starting point in the apostolic witness to Jesus as the Christ. But Christian theology is not merely about the revelation of God in and through Jesus; it is also about how the world and human beings in the world are revealed and exposed for who they are in and through the revelation of God in Jesus. Following Luther, Schleiermacher, Bultmann, and Bayer, one needs to underscore that Christian theology is also about sinful human beings who are the object of God’s forgiveness, love, and redemption in and through Jesus of Nazareth. Given this twofold focus, on sinful human beings and on God who addresses sinful human beings in Christ, Christian theology examines such additional questions as: What does Jesus reveal about human beings? Who am I in light of the witness to Jesus the Christ and the salvation accomplished by him? What do I believe about myself and other human beings on the basis of the witness to Jesus? Because the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is understood by Christians to imply a comprehensive understanding of reality, Christian theology must also address itself to understanding “the world” on the basis of the Christian understanding of God. For example, what does the revelation of God and human beings in Jesus Christ imply about nonhuman creatures and creation as a whole? According to Christoph Schwöbel (1955–2021), one of the most important Lutheran systematic theologians of the past thirty years, “Inasmuch as we understand God as Creator, Redeemer, and Consummator, and hence as the ground, measure, and end of all reality, all aspects of the Christian faith’s understanding of reality come together, rooted in the Christian

What Is Christian Theology?

understanding of God.”14 Aquinas was quite right to state that Christian theology is about God and about all other things “under the aspect of God” or in relation to God.15 In both directions, then, whether toward the revelation of God or toward the revelation of human beings and the world within the revelation of God, theology is a critical-historical-systematic discipline that inquires into the basis and nature of Christian faith in God. Traditionally, this faith is partially informed by both “natural theology,” that is, what can be discerned about the divine using the critical faculties of human reasoning and study, and “revealed theology,” that is, which is given through the originating events (and witnesses to the events), and which has been, and is being, transmitted through church traditions. Hence, theology has historically involved the interplay of reason and revelation, of philosophy and theology, even if some theologians, notably Luther, Bultmann, and Barth, stressed that so-called “natural theologies” have little or nothing to do with God as “Wholly Other” (completely transcendent to created reality). Such theologians insist that God addresses sinful human beings with a word that can be received and understood only by faith. This third element in my definition of theology has a negative and a positive aim. It desires to resist the separation of the historical-critical investigation of the Christian faith from the critical-theological inquiry into the truth and essence of that faith. Just as historical investigation cannot be isolated from a metaphysical or theological understanding of one kind or another, so theological investigation cannot be kept in isolation from historical understanding. This part of the definition also resists the notion, defended especially by Schleiermacher, that Christian theology is grounded in the university merely or primarily because of its practical goal of teaching the skills necessary for church leadership. Rather, this third element of the definition—which focuses on divine revelation—helps to keep open the question of theological truth and illusion and to return again and again to the distinctive theological dimension of that which is investigated within this academic discipline. While theology must continue to learn from those academic disciplines devoted to the history, phenomenology, philosophy, sociology, and psychology of religion, it will seek to identify and make explicit its uniquely theological perspective on the meaning and truth of Christian faith in the revelation of God, and on the possibility of understanding and responding to the self-revelation of God in the present intellectual situation. No academic discipline has a purchase on the entirety of knowledge or the totality of reality, but theology, unlike many other disciplines, desires to understand the final and total meaning of the whole of reality by means of hermeneutical inquiry. In this regard, too, Christian theology is distinct from religious studies and the philosophy of religion, which approach the Christian faith, if at all, on the basis of a different 14. Christoph Schwöbel, “God: V. Dogmatics,” RPP, 5.468. 15. Aquinas, ST, I.1.7.

125

126

Fundamental Theology

perspective, in view of different goals, and through different methods of inquiry. (For example, scholars of religious studies generally seek to approach all religions from a supposedly neutral position, whereas Christian theologians approach their subject with the perspective of their faith commitment.) Theology nevertheless desires critical engagement with these other disciplines for the sake of greater clarity about its own subject matter. This third element of my definition of theology (focusing as it does on divine revelation) also implies the historical-critical and hermeneutical character of academic theology. Because the revelation of God in Jesus is given within the apostolic and prophetic witness, this witness itself calls for critical, historical, and theological investigation. Such investigation of the originating sources of Christian faith (sacred Scripture) involves careful attention to the variety of literary genres and modes of thought within those writings. The student of the biblical writings must be concerned both for the archaeology of the biblical texts and for the dynamic trajectories of their interpretation. (4) Christian theology is a university discipline that invites critical and self-critical reflection on the revelation of God and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, as this revelation has been understood and believed in the churches over time. Theology, if it is Christian theology, examines the witness to the self-revelation of God in Jesus that is embedded in the apostolic writings of the early Christian church, yet that witness has never been alone or isolated from the long tradition of Christian believing and practicing. Theology cannot be merely about Christian faith, but includes investigation of the basis or bases for that faith and the trajectories in which that faith has been held and transmitted. To be sure, Christian theology is primarily oriented to the person of Jesus, as he is testified to by the apostles and prophets (both the OT and NT), yet it also engages the historic witness of the Christian churches through the centuries. Likewise, theology explores the nature and content of Christian faith as it has been debated and defined through the ages and within many different cultural settings. There is a kind of balancing act that occurs in Christian theology, as one moves from the originating, core witness, namely, that Jesus is the Christ, to contemporary understandings of that witness in the various global, cultural contexts and to questions about the present meaning of Christian faith. Clearly, Christian theology is not something constructed out of thin air. Rather, much like the study of civic law, the study of Christian theology involves critical inquiry into the historical and cultural traditions of theology and how those traditions have been understood over time. In this process of theological reflection on the content of Christian faith, basic questions arise: Is there really a “core” to the Christian tradition? Assuming there is a basic or elemental content to the Christian faith, how have Christians disagreed with one another about what constitutes that core? How has the Christian faith been understood and believed over time? How has the Christian faith been understood

What Is Christian Theology?

similarly and differently by peoples from differing churches and cultures? What is Christian faith? What is its nature? Purely noetic? Purely a matter of trust and confidence in God that Christian believers receive because of the self-revelation of God in Jesus the Christ? How should that faith or trust (or confidence) be understood in light of contemporary challenges to that faith, some of them novel? Once again, the hermeneutical (interpretive) nature of Christian theology is apparent as soon as one begins to wrestle with the challenge of retrieving and reformulating the content of Christian faith for today. (5) Christian theology as a university discipline, thus defined, has a fourfold goal: (a) to understand the content of the apostolic witness clearly within the ecumenical and intellectual situation of the present; (b) to consider the nature of Christian faith as trust in the gospel promise given within the apostolic witness; (c) to identify weak or faulty understandings of the Christian witness, both in the early period and in later developments; (d) to appropriate the possible truth and wisdom in the witness. These four aims should not be understood as being separated from one another, as if they were separate steps in the theological process. They are intimately related to each other in the process of understanding that which academic theology investigates. (a) The first aim is toward understanding the apostolic witness within the intellectual situation of the present. Included in this process of understanding is the awareness that contemporary Christians have not originated or invented their faith, but that it is related to an originating tradition or set of traditions that have come down to them in authoritative, highly complex, yet partly conflicting ways. Thus, one aspect of the contemporary process of understanding is ecumenical in nature; that is, it is oriented toward the worldwide diversity and divisions among the living communities of Christians, toward understanding and endeavoring to reconcile those differences theologically by returning again and again to the originating sources of the faith and their relation to the living communities of faith. This ecumenical approach encompasses the multiplicity of both Christian communities and Jewish communities, whose Hebrew Scriptures are also treated as sacred Scripture (the OT) by Christians. The process of understanding includes humility and openness to learn from Christians and other religious people beyond one’s immediate church tradition and confessional circle. Contemporary theology must also address how the originating apostolic tradition has undergone transformation over time, how it has been challenged through the centuries, how it has been defended in view of criticisms, and how it is currently being debated and discussed. Thus, it is only by virtue of the fact that Christian theology must be oriented toward historical claims, and the interpretation of those claims through the course of history, that it can faithfully be

127

128

Fundamental Theology

oriented toward the present intellectual situation. That orientation is the other aspect of the contemporary process of understanding the apostolic witness. The present situation will necessarily involve all that Tillich referred to when he spoke of “the situation,” that is, “all the various cultural forms” that express the self-understanding of contemporary human beings such as scientific, economic, religious, philosophical, literary, and artistic understandings that affect humans’ view of themselves.16 Christian theology, at least as it is undertaken within modern, Western universities, cannot merely repeat prophetic and apostolic expressions and modes of thought without giving some attention to how those expressions and modes of thought are being retrieved and reformulated (and perhaps distorted) in present cultural expressions, and thus how they ought to be understood in the present intellectual situation. While Christian theologians disagree among themselves about the degree to which the Christian faith can be adapted to the “modern mind” without losing its essential and unique character, even most who stress the contrast between modernity and Christianity acknowledge the need for contemporary translation of the Christian tradition. In short, the “present ecumenical and intellectual situation” includes a variety of overlapping realities: the diverse communities of Christians around the world, their beliefs and practices; the results of the scholarly investigation of Christian origins and the historical development of Christian traditions and practices; the academic and cultural milieu of the university; and modern society, one’s national and global life, our common human problems, crises, and challenges. Thus, there is the need for Christian theology to engage in responsible dialogue with other academic disciplines, to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and research, and to test theological positions and assertions in light of knowledge that arises from the other disciplines. The fulfillment of this need will help to improve the clarity of theological expression and the articulation of Christian theological understandings in relation to the current state of knowledge about matters that overlap with theological concerns. That dialogue may invite such questions as: Can one speak of God meaningfully and carefully within the context of the sciences within the university? Is God real or an illusion? How does my experience of God relate to the experiences of which others speak? How is one to understand the Christian doctrine of creation in light of contemporary scientific knowledge? What is the contemporary meaning of the apostolic witness to the resurrection of Jesus and the consummation of creation? (b) As will become clearer in subsequent chapters, the promise of the good news or gospel about Jesus Christ is at the center of the apostolic witness to him. So a second aim of academic theology is to explore the nature of the gospel and the nature of Christian faith. What is the nature of this gospel promise? What is its content? What is the relation of faith to the gospel promise? What is the nature of faith in the 16. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.5.

What Is Christian Theology?

promise? Christian theology, if it is to be faithful to its foundation, will be primarily oriented toward faith in the gospel promise as this is articulated within the apostolic witness to Jesus, his death, and his resurrection. But that ancient promise is itself aimed toward contemporary people today. So it challenges one to ask: Is that gospel promise still valid and trustworthy today, and if so, how and on what basis? Christian theology thus strives to make clear the character of the gospel as promise and the character of Christian faith as trust in that promise. (c) Identifying weak or even faulty theological understandings in the witness itself or in later developments of Christian theology is a third aim of academic theology. This aim directly calls on the critical character of Christian theology. The goal is to develop appropriate understandings of the Christian witness and to criticize understandings that are contrary to authentic Christian faith. The history of the Christian tradition demonstrates how Christian theology has sought to understand its object aright, to understand God truly, and to avoid false understandings, selfdeception, and illusions. The Christian tradition has thus historically maintained a distinction between “false teaching” (“heresy”) and “correct teaching” (“orthodoxy”), between behaviors and practices that are consistent with Christian faith, hope, and love, and those that are not. Within the early church, overseers or bishops, as “stewards of God,” “must be faithful to the reliable word as taught,” so that they are “able to give instruction in sound teaching and also to refute those who speak against it” (Tit. 1.9). Throughout the history of Christianity, people have raised critical questions regarding the right formulation of teachings about God and Jesus Christ, about sin and salvation, and about the church and its ministry. Some beliefs and practices were eventually deemed to fall outside of “sound doctrine.” For example, in the early church Marcion’s separation of the God of the Old Testament from the Father of Jesus was rejected as contrary to the orthodox understanding of God. More recently, Christians have had to reckon critically with the transformation of their religious symbols by people who want to use those symbols in support of neofascism, racism, and white nationalism. In other ways, too, Christians debate among themselves about what is good, right, and true, and about what should be rejected as false or harmful. For example, should the first chapters of the Bible be understood to be a literal, straightforward historical description of how God has created the universe or the first human beings? Is economic capitalism inherently incompatible with Christian social teaching? Can a Christian support the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons? Through critical, hermeneutical investigation of the Christian faith, its sources, and traditions of interpretation—which includes the interaction with the social and natural sciences and other academic disciplines—Christian theology seeks to expose elements within its own tradition that need to be critically understood and even resisted on both theological and moral grounds (e.g., how the Christian tradition has supported and even sanctioned the exploitation of poor people, people of color,

129

130

Fundamental Theology

and women). Such testing, critiquing, and revising is an aspect of the process of interpreting the Christian tradition so as to expose injustice and detect bias. This process surely need not, and should not, lead to the complete rejection of the tradition or the suppression of its influences within the academy and the larger Western culture, as some positivistic philosophers are inclined to do. It can lead, through critical reflection, to a reappropriation of the ancient tradition and its wisdom and truth, refined, for example, through the critical process of “alienating distanciation,” explanation, “diagnosis,” and understanding, to use Ricoeur’s conceptual language for describing the critical moments in the dialectical process of understanding a given tradition.17 In the modern period some people have critically rejected all religious beliefs, including Christian ones, as being illusory. These critics use the term theology in a pejorative manner, to dismiss the discipline as impractical or as foolish nonsense. Proponents of such a negative view of theology will typically call to mind the seemingly pointless speculations and distinctions of medieval theologians. Such critics of theology might also appeal to Kant’s critique of theological speculation and his insistence that humans can have no knowledge of “the noumenal world” (the world as it really is in itself) and that real knowledge can only arise from reflection on “the phenomenal world” (the world as it appears to us through sense experience and the necessary categories of the human mind).18 In view of modern criticisms of Christian theology, academic theology has had to wrestle with the nature of the object(s) it investigates and with the proper understanding of the relation between faith and reason: Is a given understanding of Christian faith free from illusion? Is such a faith well-grounded? In what ways have specific understandings and articulations of Christian faith been blind to evidence that rubs against those understandings and cherished beliefs? There is no room for such blind faith in any academic discipline, least of all in theology. Still, theology has also needed to examine critically the claims of those who oppose theology and reject that which theology investigates. Christian theology is concerned to identify where the natural and social sciences and the humanities might be blind to the accomplishments within human culture and religious traditions, specifically the tradition of Christianity, critically appropriated, when they attempt to ground all human value and wisdom solely within their own academic disciplines. 17. According to Ricoeur, distanciation takes place when interpreters distance themselves from a text, thus objectifying the text for the sake of understanding it. One appropriates a text only after it has first been “held at a distance and examined” (Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics, ed. Don Ihde, trans. Kathleen McLaughlin, Robert Sweeney, Willis Domingo, Peter McCormick, Denis Savage, and Charles Freilich [Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974], 30). 18. See Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), trans. Norman Kemp Smith (New York: St. Martin’s, 1965), 266–75.

What Is Christian Theology?

Academic theology cannot avoid engagement with both of these activities, that is, both the concern to evaluate internal understandings of the Christian faith within the Christian churches themselves (what used to be called “polemics”) and the concern to address external criticisms of the Christian faith by those who are antithetical toward it (what used to be called “apologetics”). For example, theology will address itself critically to the claims and actions of Christians and others who insist on defending and propagating interpretations of the Bible that are incongruent with basic scientific understandings, and it will assess those claims and practices in light of the sources and norm of Christian faith. For another example, theology will also address itself critically to the claims and actions of Christians that run counter to basic Christian teachings regarding human dignity and equality. In addition, theology will attend itself critically to the claims of those who are completely dismissive of central assertions within the Christian tradition, or whose positions otherwise conflict with the essential content of the gospel promise, to assess them in light of the sources and norm of Christian faith. By addressing all theological and atheological “fronts,” theology can perhaps set forth an alternative position, which Don Browning has rightly called “a revived Christian humanism,” namely, a position that is more faithful to the complexities of reality, more attendant to the problems of evil and injustice in the world, and more consistent with the Christian-humanist pursuit of truth, justice, beauty, and wisdom. (d) A final aim of academic theology is to hold open the possibility that the student of theology might be able to appropriate truth and wisdom from the Christian tradition. This last aim might be the most foreign to many university students, since they are acutely aware of the plurality and relativity of all human knowledge and are skeptical about claims to “truth,” especially a claim to universal truth on the part of a specific religion. For many people religion is merely a matter of taste, not a matter of truth and wisdom. In our time, some hold that scientific knowledge alone is the epitome of truth and the only reliable guide to what is real. Others are mostly dismissive of all truth claims, and some will even speak of “alternative facts,” or will casually say, “You have your version of the truth, while I have mine.” While university theology must take seriously the evidence and argumentation of other academic disciplines, it will want to make the case that scientific knowledge is not the only form of knowledge worth pursuing in the academy, that there are matters that properly fall into the domains of wisdom and folly, and that matters of faith—of what one ultimately believes about one’s self in relation to the total of what is real—take one beyond the capability of empirical verification but not thereby beyond what is worth knowing and even treasuring. On the other hand, Christian theology ought also to be critical of “strong” relativism (= nihilism), of claims to “alternative facts,” and of moral vacuity. In other words, Christian theology should be concerned about seeking what is true, right, and salutary. In this way, theology joins those who defend the importance of the humanities in the academic pursuit of

131

132

Fundamental Theology

truth, virtue, and wisdom. This pursuit should not be understood as being inherently in conflict with the knowledge produced in the natural, human, and social sciences, based as they are on mathematics and empirical observation, but as complementing that knowledge and allowing that knowledge to complement the investigations and pursuits of theology, despite the fact that obvious tensions and contradictions will likely continue to exist between the sciences and the humanities (the arts, literature, philosophy, religious studies, history, theology, and other disciplines that often resist using merely mathematical and statistical methods). Unlike those who think that all forms of metaphysics and theology have become outdated, Christian theologians and some philosophers will point out “that the propensity for metaphysics in humans is not so easily suppressed.”19 Is it not part of being human to ask questions about the meaning of the whole and the possibility of lasting truth, virtue, and wisdom? These questions take one near the center of Christian theology. To partially paraphrase Ricoeur, “the wager” of Christian academic theology is that critical engagement with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, its historical transmission, and the trajectories of its interpretation will give rise to a deeper understanding of God, the world, and human beings, as given within the Christian tradition, that is, a deeper understanding of Christian faith and Christian wisdom.20 Of course, even here one’s understanding of God remains fragmentary, unfinished, elusive, and always in need of further reflection.

Questions for review and discussion



1. Does the place in which Christian theology is undertaken make a difference for how it is undertaken? The author is critical of Schleiermacher’s practical orientation. Why? Do you agree with the author’s concern? 2. Do you agree that even non-Christian and nonreligious people should study Christian theology as an academic subject? If not, why not? If so, for what reason(s) should they study theology?

19. Gadamer, “The Future of the European Humanities,” 198. 20. See Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, 355–7. I wager that I shall have a better understanding of man and of the bond between the being of man and the being of all beings if I follow the indication of symbolic thought. That wager then becomes the task of verifying my wager and saturating it, so to speak, with intelligibility. In return, the task transforms my wager: in betting on the significance of the symbolic world, I bet at the same time that my wager will be restored to me in power of reflection, in the element of coherent discourse. (Ibid., 355; emphasis in original.)

What Is Christian Theology?















3. Is Christian theology a credible academic discipline in a university? Does it deal with an actual reality, or is it merely a matter of human illusion and imagination? How is theology different from other academic disciplines? How is it similar? 4. The author also uses the terms ecumenical and hermeneutical to describe the nature of Christian theology. What do these terms imply about how Christian theology is done in an academic setting? 5. What does it mean to say that Christian theology has “a critical task?” What gets criticized? Do you think it is appropriate for Christian theologians to keep rethinking about God, the world, and human beings? 6. Why does theology involve risk to one’s self-understanding? How would you describe your current comfort level about academic theology? 7. To what degree should Christians pay attention to scholarly knowledge from nontheological disciplines? What is/are the risk(s) here? Conversely, should the nontheological disciplines pay any attention to the claims made within Christian theology? What is/are the risk(s) here? What role ought the pursuit of “truth” and “justice” play in a university? How does one arrive at “a practical standpoint” (to use Weber’s phrase)? Does theology have anything to contribute to that pursuit? 8. What is the importance of “revelation” in Christian theology? What does that concept imply about God? In other words, what is it about God that requires revelation? What gets revealed in the apostolic witness to Jesus? 9. What is faith? The chapter uses several other terms to describe faith: knowledge, trust, and confidence. Which of these three terms is more central to the concept of faith, if any, and why? Do you agree that faith can be subject to critical investigation? Why or why not? What is the relation between God and faith? 10. Review the author’s definition of Christian theology. How, if at all, would you modify it?

Suggestions for further reading Classic statements on the nature and tasks of Christian theology Aquinas, ST, I.1. For Luther, see Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, 15–82. For older Lutheran Protestant views, see Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the EvangelicalLutheran Church, 15–25. For older Reformed Protestant views, see Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 1–11. Schleiermacher, Brief Outline on the Study of Theology, §§1–5, 15.

133

134

Fundamental Theology

More recent statements on the nature and tasks of Christian Theology Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, trans. Grover Foley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). [The first chapter in this brief book addresses the purposes of Protestant theology. This is one of the more accessible routes into Barth’s theology.] Karl Barth, “The Word of God as the Task of Theology,” The Beginnings of Dialectical Theology, ed. James M. Robinson. trans. Keith R. Crim and Louis De Grazia (Richmond: John Knox, 1968). [This 1922 essay helped to define the character of “Dialectical Theology” over against the liberal Protestant tradition that had been established by Schleiermacher and furthered by later German Protestants. The essay stresses the revelation of God from above as the proper starting point of theology.] Karl Barth, CD, 1/1.vii–24. [Barth’s opening statement on the task of dogmatic theology in his multivolume magnum opus.] Carl Braaten, “Prolegomena to Christian Dogmatics,” in Christian Dogmatics, ed. Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, 2 vols (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1.5–60. [A helpful introduction to Christian dogmatics by one of the most important AmericanLutheran theologians of the past seventy years.] Rudolf Bultmann, What Is Theology?, ed. Eberhard Jüngel and Klaus W. Müller, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). [An excellent English translation of Bultmann’s 1926 lectures on theological encyclopedia. His opening chapter underscores “the risk” of faith and the impossibility of speaking “of God.”] Rebecca S. Chopp and Mark Lewis Taylor, “Introduction: Crisis, Hope, and Contemporary Theology,” in Reconstructing Christian Theology, ed. Rebecca S.Chopp and Mark Lewis Taylor (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 1–24. [A helpful overview of the varieties of theological options in the academy near the end of the previous century.] Gerhard Ebeling, “Discussion Theses for a Course of Introductory Lectures on the Study of Theology,” Word and Faith, trans. James W. Leitch (London: SCM Press, 1963), 424–33. [This essay sets forth an understanding of Christian theology by one of the leading existentialist theologians of the past century.] Gerhard Ebeling, The Study of Theology, trans. Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). [This is Ebeling’s set of lectures on theological encyclopedia for the German university scene in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Though dated, his account of the orientation of theology as a whole in the first chapter provides a helpful description of the discipline within a university context. Throughout his discussion of the multiple branches of theology in the rest of the book he continually reminds us of the hermeneutical nature of Christian theology.] Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, eds., Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 1–78. [The introduction by Fiorenza provides an excellent, recent orientation to the tasks and methods of theology as seen by a leading Roman Catholic theologian in America.] David F. Ford, The Future of Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2011). [An important argument for the ongoing need for good theology. After observing our

What Is Christian Theology?

current need for biblical wisdom and theology, Ford examines such issues as the nature of belonging to the Christian community, interfaith engagement, theology and religious studies, and the Bible as a creative source for theology.] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th edn (Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2017). [Popular introduction to systematic theology by an important British-Evangelical scholar.] Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 1–20. [This is a major seminary-level textbook by a principal Reformed theologian in the United States. The first chapter extends elements that have been made in the present chapter.] Jürgen Moltmann, “What Is a Theologian?,” Irish Theological Quarterly 64 (1999): 189– 98. [An excellent, brief, informal introduction to the basic task of Christian theology by one of the most important Protestant theologians of the past seven decades.] Schubert Ogden, On Theology (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1986). [A set of essays on the nature and task of Christian theology as viewed by one of the leading Protestant revisionist theologians in America during the past fifty years.] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.1–61. [A sophisticated introduction to Christian theology by one of the most important Lutheran theologians of the past century.] Richard J. Plantinga, Thomas R. Thompson, and Matthew D. Lundberg, An Introduction to Christian Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). [The first chapter in this widely used college textbook provides a helpful introduction to the nature of Christian theology from a Reformed Protestant perspective.] Dorothee Sölle, Thinking about God: An Introduction to Theology (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). [An English translation of introductory lectures to Christian theology by a leading German feminist theologian from the second half of the last century. Sölle delivered these lectures to large audiences of nonexperts. She covers a wide swath of theological territory in a very accessible way, although some of her illustrations are oriented more to her European context.] Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.3–68. [Tillich’s exposition of his understanding of theology, his method of correlation, and the basic aims of theology.] David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 3–98. [This is a major work in fundamental theology and theological encyclopedia by the leading American Roman Catholic revisionist theologian of the past half century. The first 95 pages explore the nature and tasks of Christian theology. He further develops his Tillichian understanding of theology as a critical process of correlation between the symbols of Christian faith, on the one hand, and one’s contemporary culture, on the other. One of the most discussed books in Christian theology during the past forty years.] Miroslav Volf and Matthew Croasmun, For the Life of the World: Theology Makes a Difference (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2019). [An excellent argument for the purpose of Christian theology, which is “to discern, articulate, and commend visions of flourishing life in light of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ.”]

135

136

Part II The Subject of Christian Theology

138

4 The Natural Knowledge of God This chapter discusses the general revelation of God on the basis of the natural knowledge of God that the New Testament asserts is generally or universally available to all human beings. The chapter describes the principal positions that Christian theologians have taken regarding the possibility of a natural knowledge of God.

What is the object of Christian theology? What does the discipline study? According to the definition given in Chapter 3, the object of theology is not “God” (as God is in essence), nor is it mere Christian “faith” (believing in God through Christ). Rather, the object is the revelation of God, the world, and of human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. This definition presupposes that God is not an empirical object like any other object in the world. God is not such a being or object. God is beyond human observation or comprehension. God “resides in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6.16). God is such that God cannot be seen or known as an object of human perception. According to the Gospel of John, “No one has ever seen God” (Jn 1.18). Because God is the creator and source of all things, God is not one more “thing” in the universe like some kind of superhuman spiritual person. God is not the highest or most powerful entity within the universe. Instead, God is radically distinct from the universe as a whole, which God created entirely from nothing. While human beings may try to raise themselves to the place of God, God is beyond their reach. They cannot raise themselves to the level or dimension of God, and all attempts to do so end in failure and sin. (Surely this is one of the theological conclusions that one may legitimately draw from the story of the Tower of Babel in Gen. 11.) God transcends all things, even numbers. God is certainly not open to scientific verification or human manipulation. While Christians believe that God is real, they do not believe God is real in the same way that created reality is real. God is never available for detached theoretical inspection. Moreover, Christians believe that no mortal creature can know God directly or fully in God’s essential being. God remains ultimately incomprehensible, even for the Christian believer, whose knowledge is always finite, limited, time-bound, and imperfect. As the psalmist put the matter, the knowledge that God has “is too

140

Fundamental Theology

wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it” (Ps. 139.6 [RSV]). The Psalms also declare: “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; his greatness is unsearchable” (Ps. 145.3). When the OT prophet Isaiah asked the question, “Who has known the mind of the LORD?” (Isa. 40.13 [NIV]), the implied answer is: “No one, not even those who spend their days surveying the knowledge of God in the Scriptures.” And Isaiah pointedly asks: “Who has been God’s counselor?” (Isa. 40.13). According to this same OT prophet, God’s “thoughts” are not our “thoughts,” nor are our “ways” God’s “ways” (Isa. 55.8). Speaking through his prophet, the LORD states, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55.9). Other OT figures, like one of Job’s “counselors,” make the same point: “Have you heard God’s secret counsel and laid hold of wisdom?” (Job 15.8). “Do you think that you know what God knows and do you want to embrace it as perfectly as the Almighty?” (Job 11.7).1 And the prophet Jeremiah asks rhetorically, “But who has stood in the counsel of the LORD, who has seen and heard his word?” (Jer. 23.18). The apostle Paul echoed this frank acknowledgment of human limitations regarding their knowledge of God: “No one comprehends the mind of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2.11). “We now see dimly in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know only a little; then I shall understand, even as I have been understood” (1 Cor. 13.12). “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?’ Or who has given a gift to God that he might be repaid?” (Rom. 11.33-34 [RSV; modified]). The only proper answer to all these questions is a resounding “no one!” The only positive response to the unsearchable and inscrutable ways of God is humble silence and voiced praise and adoration: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11.36). Even for the Christian, God remains a hidden mystery, whose hiddenness persists despite the glimpse that is unveiled through the manifestation of the glory of God in Jesus Christ. This emphasis on the hiddenness and mystery of God runs like a red thread throughout the Scriptures. Again, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel is instructive: God dwells beyond where the efforts of human beings to reach God can go. “Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel” (Isa. 45.15). Even 1. Within the biblical “wisdom literature” (Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon, some of the Psalms, e.g., Ps. 37), some of it based on non-biblical traditions of wisdom from cultures beyond ancient Israel, the reflection of “sages” on the mysteries of the universe leads toward the knowledge and adoration of the Creator. An exemplary trait of biblical wisdom is the personification of Sophia (“Lady Wisdom”), cf. Proverbs 1, 3, 9; and Job 28. Lady Wisdom is associated with creation. She is the revelation of God in and through creation (cf. Ps. 19.1).

The Natural Knowledge of God

Moses, the great man of God in the OT, who desired to see God’s “glory” (Exod. 33.17-23), was prohibited from doing so, since no mortal can see God’s “face” and live. All God gave Moses was God’s name (“The LORD”). God then said to him, “You cannot see my face; for a mortal cannot see me and live” (Exod. 33.19-20 [RSV; modified]). When God’s glory went by, Moses was only allowed to see God’s “back,” God’s posterior. Even then, God remained a mystery beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. Of course, there is a paradox here, since something more of the mystery becomes known through the partial unveiling or revelation, but it is not fully known. The mystery resists full resolution, even after the coming of Christ. The NT also teaches that God remains “invisible,” hidden, not fully comprehensible (cf., Rom. 1.20; Col. 1.15; 1 Tim. 1.17). According to Mark’s account of the transfiguration of Jesus (Mk 9.2-8), “a cloud overshadowed” Jesus and the disciples, and all they experienced was “a voice” that came from the cloud. They heard, but they did not see God the Father (cf. Exod. 24.9-18). A basic teaching of Christian theology, then, perhaps the first teaching, is that God remains ultimately incomprehensible to human beings. The ancient church father Tertullian said, “The eye cannot see [God], though he is (spiritually) visible. He is incomprehensible, though in grace he is manifested. He is beyond our utmost thought, though our human faculties conceive of him … That which is infinite is only known to itself.”2 The appropriate human response to this truth, declared Gregory of Nyssa, is not to reach beyond our grasp: “Knowing, then, how widely the Divine nature differs from our own, let us quietly remain within our proper limits. For it is both safer and more reverent to believe the majesty of God to be greater than we can understand, than, after circumscribing his glory by our misconceptions, to suppose there is nothing beyond our conception of it.”3 St. Augustine began his Confessions with this declaration: “Can any praise be worthy of the Lord’s majesty? How magnificent his strength! How inscrutable his wisdom!”4 After quoting Jn 1.18, John of Damascus began his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by stating: “The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. ‘For no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father’ ” [a paraphrase of Mt. 11.27].5 The medieval mystical theologian known as “Pseudo-Dionysus” agreed: “Since the unknowing of what is beyond being is something above and beyond speech, mind, or being itself, one should ascribe to it an understanding beyond being. Let us therefore look as far upward as the light of sacred Scripture will allow, and, in our reverent awe of what is 2. Tertullian, Apology, 17 (ANF, 3.31–2). 3. Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book (384) (NPNF2, 5.260). 4. So begins the most famous Christian theological text in the history of Western Christendom: Augustine, Confessions, I.1 (WSA, I/1.39). 5. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (NPNF2, 9.1).

141

142

Fundamental Theology

divine, let us be drawn together toward the divine splendor.”6 “It is impossible for any created intellect to comprehend God,” wrote Thomas Aquinas. “No created intellect can comprehend God wholly.”7 The Spanish mystic and colleague of Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross (1542–91), echoed this thought: “God’s being cannot be grasped by the intellect, appetite, imagination, or any other sense, nor can it be known in this life.”8 Classic Protestant theologians have affirmed this same basic point. They maintained a kind of Platonism by agreeing with the medieval Christian distinction between the knowledge that God has of himself (“theologia archetypos”) and the knowledge of God that human beings can have (“theologia ektypos”). The first type is “a theology of the original itself,” in contrast to “a theology that is a copy of the original.”9 Moreover, theology is “a theology of those who are still under way, who have not yet reached the goal (a theologia viatorum in contrast to a theologia comprehensorum).”10 Thus, what human beings can attain is a knowledge of faith, not of sight. The medieval scholastics furthermore stressed that Christian theology is concerned only with the knowledge that God has imparted by grace, not with the knowledge that God has about himself. Only God has perfect and immediate knowledge of himself. Our “natural knowledge” of God is thus inferential, mediated knowledge, which corresponds to God only remotely, analogically, and imperfectly. While we hope that our understanding of the ultimately incomprehensible and ineffable God corresponds to God’s own self-understanding, the qualitative distinction between God as Wholly Other and ourselves as creatures of God remains. So all of our statements about God are at best inadequate analogies and metaphors. As the Fourth Lateran Council stated in 1215: “Between the Creator and the creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them.”11 At its heart, theology is analogical and metaphorical. We must therefore maintain the “apophatic” or negative 6. Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names, 1.1, in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, 49. 7. Aquinas, ST, I.12.7–8. 8. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mt Carmel (1579–85), in The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, trans. Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez (Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979), 113. That God is unknowable by the human intellect is also a basic theme in the anonymously written The Cloud of Unknowing, a fourteenth-century Christian mystical text. See The Cloud of Unknowing, ed. James Walsh (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1981). 9. Cf. Schmidt, Doctrinal Theology, 16–18; Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 5; Barth, CD, II/1.209. 10. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.134. The contrast here is between “a theology of sojourners” and “a theology of those who know,” that is, between those who are still on their earthly pilgrimage and those who “know God face to face” and behold his glory in heaven. The theologia comprehensorum is sometimes also called a theologia patriae, that is, the theology of those who are “at home,” who are “no longer wandering on from one hour to the next, from one decision to another,” but who are standing “once for all at the goal of faith and know God face to face” (Barth, CD, II/1.209 [trans. modified]). 11. Tanner, 1.232.

The Natural Knowledge of God

element in theology. Whenever we say that God is “like” something, we must also acknowledge a simultaneous negation: God is actually “not like” that something. That we can say anything about God is possible only on the basis of God’s deliberate love and his relationship to those creatures who have been created in his image and likeness, that is, human beings. The human mind is thus capable of receiving some knowledge of the infinite God, as the modern theologian Jürgen Moltmann says: To be an image implies correspondence, likeness, reflection, echo, and response. So human reason is created in such a way that with its ideas and concepts it can correspond to God and can express his eternal presence in its temporal metaphors. Through his general presence in the created world, the Creator authenticates the analogical knowledge of God through the beings he has created; for knowledge of the other presupposed the community of those who are different.12

While God cannot be studied as objects are studied, most Christians believe that God can be more sufficiently, if incompletely, known on the basis of God’s own unveiling or self-revelation.13 Again, the basis for this incomplete knowledge is God’s own selfgiving love. The NT author of 1 John says: God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 Jn 4.9-12)

“Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 Jn 4.8). “Our access to God is thus really understood as God bringing us to himself.”14 It may help to remember that the word revelation comes from the Latin verb revelare (“to uncover,” 12. Jürgen Moltmann, “What Is a Theologian?,” Irish Theological Quarterly 64 (1999): 197. 13. While one of the most important Eastern theologians, Gregory of Palamas (c. 1296–1359), agreed that God’s essence remains ineffable and unknowable, he argued that humans can prayerfully experience God’s uncreated “energies” by means of God’s deifying grace. Palamas defended the Eastern practice of inner, quiet, mystical prayer that can lead eventually to the vision of the Divine Light, which, he thought, can be seen with one’s own eyes that are aided by divine grace. According to Palamas and others, this Light is thought to be identical to the Light that surrounded Jesus in his Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor (cf. Mt. 17.2), that is, the uncreated energies of the Godhead. See esp. Gregory of Palamas, The Triads (c. 1338), ed. John Meyendorff, trans. Nicolas Gendle (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1983). In the fourteenth century, this type of prayer and theological understanding were fiercely criticized by some as a superstition. The critics maintained that a human being could not behold the Divine Light with bodily eyes. Moreover, the critics argued that Palamas’s distinction between the essence and energies of God impaired the unity of God. Still, Palamas was able to get this type of mystical prayer formally recognized at several councils that met in Constantinople in the mid-fourteenth century. 14. Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 155.

143

144

Fundamental Theology

“to unveil”), which itself is a translation of the Greek verb apokalypto (“to cause something to be fully known, reveal, disclose, bring to light”).15 Through “revelation” (Greek: “apokalypsis”), what was hidden or covered gets unveiled. Thus, as St. Paul says, God’s revelation is “the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith” (Rom. 16.25-26). So the mystery that is disclosed is God’s own plan and purpose, not a collection of bits and pieces of supernatural information or facts about which humans might be ignorant.16 Although the concept of revelation as God’s selfdisclosure assumed a dominant position within Christian theology only since the sixteenth century, it does express an important biblical insight, namely, that God alone can make God known to human beings, and thus the term has been fruitfully used by Christian theologians within the past several centuries.17 According to Christian theology, the self-revelation of God is truly “of God,” originating and coming solely from God, not something produced by human beings. Moreover, it is given through both “nature” (“natural knowledge of God”) and “history” (“special revelation of God”). The latter comes principally, Christians believe, through Jesus of Nazareth, an historic individual. He not only reveals God to human beings and acts as God’s means for accomplishing the salvation of the world, but he also reveals human beings to be the objects of God’s redemptive love. For Christians, God remains even more hidden, veiled, and incomprehensible apart from Jesus. St. Paul declares: “For God, the one who has spoken, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ is the one who has shown in our hearts to give the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4.6). Jesus reveals “the glory” of God, even as the resurrection of Jesus reveals the power of God and the vindication of Jesus, God’s servant. In this way the revelation of God in and through Jesus continues and fulfills God’s self-disclosure in the history of Israel and Israelite traditions, especially in the promises to Abram (Gen. 12.1-3) and David (2 Sam. 7.16), but also in the rescue and liberation of Israel from slavery in Egypt and in the prophetic hope that God’s glory would be manifested to the nations in the final event of God’s salvation.18 Christian faith “lives on the gospel’s assurance that in Jesus Christ there has appeared the ultimate salvation of God the Creator for the world.”19

15. BDAG, 112; cf. ODCC, 2.1648. 16. John Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 28. 17. For the concept of revelation in modern Christian theology, see Helmut Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, 3 vols, ed. and trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–82), 2.5–60. 18. This latter aspect is especially emphasized in the essays in Revelation as History, ed. Wolfhart Pannenberg, trans. David Granskou (London: Macmillan, 1968). 19. Schwöbel, “God: V. Dogmatics,” RPP, 5.468.

The Natural Knowledge of God

While traditionally the Christian doctrine of God has taken its point of departure from the so-called natural knowledge of God, which is sometimes also called “general revelation,” Christian faith as faith trusts in God solely on the basis of the historical revelation of God in Jesus, who reveals God as the loving Creator and Redeemer of the world. This historical revelation of God is sometimes also called “special revelation.” Thus, the Christian doctrine of God is centered christologically, that is, in the person and work of Jesus the Christ. “Special” Christian theology begins from a different presence of God in the world than is given through “general” revelation: God’s incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth. The centering of faith in Jesus leads to the development of the teaching about the Trinity, namely, that God is triune: God the eternal Father sends forth the Word (the Logos, also referred to as “the Son”) into the world, who redeems the world, and sends the Holy Spirit, who leads people to receive this salvation accomplished by the Son to the glory of the Father. In this sense, God is not the “object” of theology but its “Subject,” the One who addresses human beings, who alone judges them rightly, and who ultimately acts to save them. The remote relationship of the Creator to his creatures gives way to Christ’s intimate relationship to God that he shares with his disciples. The Son’s knowledge of the Father is imparted by the Son: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt. 11.27). The Son calls to all: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt. 11.28-30). It is worth emphasizing that the special revelation of God also includes the revelation of the world and of human beings in the world and of God’s relationship to them. Contrary to those Christian thinkers, such as the medieval philosopher Duns Scotus (c. 1265–1308), who have thought that the triune God is the only object of theology, Christian theology does in fact speak of more than God. It also speaks of human beings, as creatures made in the image of God, who are “fallen” and alienated from God, but redeemed by Christ. Christian theology, as Thomas Aquinas rightly noted, also speaks of everything else in relation to God through Jesus Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, part of the claim of Christian theology is that human understanding of the universe, and of the place of human beings within the universe, remains incomplete apart from the revelation of the universe as the created object of God’s redeeming love. The announcement of the gospel is that sinful human beings are loved and forgiven by God and are called by the Spirit to find the source and goal of their being in God and in God’s love for them and for others. In some sense Christians maintain that human beings cannot truly know themselves for who they ultimately are, as they are created and intended to be, unless they know themselves to be loved

145

146

Fundamental Theology

by God and intended for relationship with God. Attempts to understand the world, and ourselves, in any other rational or irrational way, lead only to dissatisfaction and discontent. As Augustine famously wrote at the beginning of his Confessions, “You stir us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you.”20 This dual focus has remained important within Christian theology down to the present. Centuries after Augustine, John Calvin echoed this Augustinian position when he began his Institutes of the Christian Religion with two interrelated propositions: “Without knowledge of self, there is no knowledge of God … Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self.”21 One of the great Lutheran theologians and preachers of the twentieth century, Helmut Thielicke, made the same point: We find our humanity in the humanity of Jesus Christ. We see in him the original of humanity. We perceive our goal in a living person. We cannot say of ourselves who we are, for we cannot say of ourselves who God is. In this sense anthropology is always for Christians a part of theology.22

This claim of Christian teaching, namely, that human beings do not really know themselves aright until they know themselves to be known and loved by God, is a basic element within Christian theological anthropology (the study and understanding of human beings). According to key texts of the NT, all human beings, even those who worship other gods, have some knowledge of the one, true God and thus deserve condemnation when they do not worship or serve God and instead serve other gods. This so-called natural knowledge of God has traditionally been called general revelation, because it is a knowledge of God that has been given to everyone. In the words of the apostle Paul: For the anger of God is being revealed from heaven against every impiety and injustice of human beings who by their injustice suppress the truth. For what can be known of God is apparent to them, because God has manifested it to them. For ever since the creation of the world God’s invisible nature, namely, God’s eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God, they did not honor God as God or give thanks to God, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal human beings or birds or animals or reptiles. (Rom. 1.18-23)

20. Augustine, Confessions, I.1 (WSA, I/1.39). 21. Calvin, ICR, I.1.1–2 (1.35, 37). 22. Helmut Thielicke, Modern Faith and Thought, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 53.

The Natural Knowledge of God

A Jewish precursor to Paul also complained that people in his day worshiped as gods “fire, wind …, turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven … that rule the world”: If through delight in the beauty of these things people assumed them to be gods, let them know how much better than these is their Lord, for the author of beauty created them. And if people were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is the one who formed them. For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. (Wisdom of Solomon 13.2-5)

According to Paul, even people who do not know the Jewish and Christian Scriptures know the moral law of God, which is “written on their hearts” and active within their conscience (Rom. 2.15). Similarly, the Gospel of John asserts that the Word by which the entire universe was made is “the true light that enlightens everyone” (Jn 1.9). Both Paul and the author of the Fourth Gospel (whose contents are traditionally linked to the apostle John) are reflecting earlier Greek philosophical theology, especially Stoicism, with its ideas of universal reason that reflects and comprehends the orderly cosmos and the divine law that is intrinsic to every human being. Such concepts are implicit in other parts of the NT as well (see Acts 14.16-17; 17.22-31). In the NT book of Acts Paul is depicted as preaching to non-Christian philosophers in Athens, where he tells them that what they worship “as unknown” and in “ignorance” he will make clear to them, namely, that “the God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth,” does not live in anything or have human needs but is the source of all that is. Paul even quotes favorably a pagan statement: “In [God] we live and move and have our being.” From these scriptural passages early Christians affirmed the idea of a natural knowledge of God. This idea holds that God’s eternal power and deity are manifest to all human beings from creation and, as the account in Acts 17.24-31 indicates, that every being receives its being from God. This means that every human being has some awareness, however dim, of a Higher Power, who is the source of human being and of all being. The claim of Paul is that since God is self-revealing through God’s creation, all human beings can indeed know something of God, but because of human finitude and sin people frequently choose to ignore or distort this general, natural revelation. Although every human being could know—and ought to know— the living Creator, Paul states that they do not know the true God and therefore instead worship idols rather than their true Creator. This line of thinking about a natural knowledge of God was extended in the second century by the Greek apologists, such as Clement of Alexandria, who wrote that even non-Christians have some knowledge of God, albeit fragmentary and distorted, by means of the Logos, the divine reason, that enlightens every human being (Jn 1.9). Complementing the knowledge of God that comes from the sensible evidence of the

147

148

Fundamental Theology

external world, there is also an innate, though imperfect knowledge of God within every human person. This latter idea of an innate, natural knowledge of God has been common, though controversial throughout the history of Christian thought. Tertullian, who had been trained in Stoicism, taught this, despite his otherwise strong criticism of paganism and the sharp contrast he made between Christian teaching and all pagan philosophy. Although Tertullian famously quipped that Athens (symbol for pagan philosophy and learning) had nothing in common with Jerusalem (symbol for God’s special revelation in Israel and Jesus), he nonetheless held that one could receive a natural knowledge of God that derived from the order and beauty of the sensible cosmos and from the immediate witness of the soul.23 The principal Greek theologians in the East defended similar claims about the order of the universe, as did Augustine in the West.24 According to the latter, all human beings are capable of contemplating God, in whose image they have been created (Gen. 1.26-27), and of receiving the gift of wisdom that comes from God. Yet all human beings in fact fall short of truly understanding God and acquiring wisdom because of their finite, sinful condition.25 For Augustine, the thinkers who approached closest to this truth were the Platonic philosophers, when they “conceived of God, the supreme and true God, as the author of all created things, the light of knowledge, the final good of all activity, and who have recognized him as being for us the origin of existence, the truth of doctrine and the blessedness of life.”26

23. On the natural knowledge of God via the soul, see Tertullian, Apology, 17 (ANF, 3.31–2). According to Tertullian, while God is beyond all our conceptions, we do have some notion of God: “our very incapacity of fully grasping God affords us the idea of what he really is” (Tertullian, Apology, 17 [ANF, 3.32]). Elsewhere, Tertullian offered his famous contrast between “Athens” and “Jerusalem”: [Paul] had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, while it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? Between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. (Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics, 7 [ANF, 3.246]) 24. For an insightful analysis of “natural theology” among the fourth-century Cappadocians (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Macrina), see Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, 22–39. 25. Augustine, The Trinity, XV.2–3 (WSA, I/5.399–411). 26. Augustine, City of God, VIII.9 (WSA, I/6.253 [trans. modified]).

The Natural Knowledge of God

Several centuries after Augustine, the medieval theologian Bonaventure echoed his intellectual ancestor when he underscored that human beings may contemplate God within themselves because God’s image is imprinted upon their very soul, and that the light of God’s eternal Word illumines their minds with the “the light of eternal Truth, since the mind itself is immediately formed by Truth itself.”27 Going beyond what Augustine taught about the image of God imprinted on the human soul, however, Bonaventure seems to have thought that even the non-Christian— who is also created in the image of the only true and living God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—could have some knowledge of this divine mystery, though he denied that they could know God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.28 Aquinas, too, emphasized the mediation of the natural knowledge of God through sensory experience of things in the world. He also held, as did his teacher, Albert the Great (c. 1195–1280), that all humans have an implicit, if incomplete and confused, knowledge of one, true God: “To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, since God is man’s Happiness.”29 In this AugustinianPlatonic view, upheld by many later theologians, God is the goal of human goodness and happiness, and to the extent that individual humans strive for goodness and happiness they are actually striving toward God, the highest good. Aquinas, however, made a sharper distinction between the knowledge of God that is “natural” and that which is “supernatural” than did Bonaventure. Aquinas taught that the supernatural knowledge comes only from God’s grace and is “above reason,” though not contrary to it, and that it is necessary for one to have this supernatural grace in order for one’s mind to be divinely illuminated about the mysteries of God. Natural reason is limited to what it can perceive through the senses, though it can recognize the reliability of the prophetic and apostolic witnesses to be the means of special, divine revelation. Aquinas thus emphasized a synthesis between natural reason and supernatural grace: Sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity … Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: As some also of your own poets said; For we are also His offspring (Acts 17.28).30 27. Bonaventure, The Mind’s Road to God (1259), trans. George Boas (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1953), 34. 28. Cf. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 3.282–3, 287. 29. Aquinas, ST, I.2.1 (obj. 1). 30. Aquinas, ST, I.1.8 (obj. 2; emphasis in original).

149

150

Fundamental Theology

This Thomistic attitude toward a natural knowledge of God has been quite influential in the history of Christian theology, and it received official sanction in the Roman Catholic Church at the First Vatican Council (1869–70): “The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things.”31 Nevertheless, many Protestant theologians criticize this position since it seems to suggest that human beings, through their own rational efforts, can achieve knowledge of God on their own, and that such knowledge is a human possibility rather than solely the result of God’s own self-disclosure through the works of creation.32 One needs to note, however, that Luther and Calvin also taught that God provides the basis or ground for some knowledge of God to all people through the light of their reasoning about the works of creation. Despite Luther’s strong criticism of those who think they can know God truly on the basis of a natural knowledge through their reason, he nevertheless agreed with Paul’s assertion that all people, even those in other religions, have some knowledge of the true God and are thus without excuse when they do not worship God faithfully. On the basis of his understanding of Rom. 1.20, Luther argued that this natural knowledge that God gives everyone includes an awareness of God’s power, righteousness, immortality, and goodness. Reason knows that there is a God. However, it knows neither who the true God is nor what he is like. Reason plays blind man’s buff with God; it makes all kinds of attempts to grasp him but always without success. It invariably misses him. For this reason it always identifies as God something that is not God and denies that the real God is God at all. It would do none of these things if it did not know that there is a God—or if it knew who God is and what he is like. Therefore, it simply jumps in and gives divine titles and honor to what it thinks is God, while actually never hitting upon the true God … So, there is a great difference between knowing that there is a God and knowing who he is and what he is like. Nature knows the first and it is written in all hearts. The second is taught by the Holy Spirit.33

Calvin developed a nearly identical position, as did Luther’s colleague Philip Melanchthon, at least in his later years, and both of these thinkers influenced later articulations of the same basic position by the Protestant theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.34 According to Calvin, God has provided 31. Denzinger, 3004; cf. Tanner, 2.806. 32. See Barth, CD, II/1.79–84; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.75–6. 33. Luther, Lectures on Jonah (1525–6), LW1, 19.54–5 (trans. modified). 34. In his 1521 Loci, Melanchthon asserted that “the reality of God, the wrath of God, and the mercy of God are spiritual things, and therefore cannot be known by the flesh. Moreover, whatever nature knows of God without the Spirit of God renewing and enlightening our hearts, whatever it may be, I say it is but a frigid opinion and not faith” (Melanchthon, Loci Communes [1521], 173.). For Calvin’s understanding of natural theology, see B. A. Gerrish, “ ‘To the Unknown God’: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,” and “The

The Natural Knowledge of God

human beings with an innate “sense of the divine,” “a certain understanding of his divine majesty,” “a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.”35 While all humans are genuinely aware of the divine, this sense is inchoate and unclear. Because of sin and the tendency toward idolatry, all human beings “degenerate from a true knowledge of him.”36 According to Melanchthon, “God built into our human nature an understanding of number and order and other distinctions, so that we might learn something about him, so that we might distinguish the only eternal Being from all the many created things.”37 Since Melanchthon spoke of this knowledge as “the first article of faith,” clearly he thought natural human reason could arrive at the correct conclusion “that there is one unified eternal omnipotent Being” and not additional deities.38 Reformed theologians in the tradition of Calvin referred to this innate and acquired knowledge of God through reason and observation as “natural religion.”39 Later Protestant theologians, both Lutheran and Reformed, referred to this preliminary, natural knowledge of God as “general revelation,” which they held to be theologically subordinate and preliminary to God’s “special revelation” in the history of Israel and the words and actions of Jesus and the Spirit. John Gerhard referred to this twofold revelation using a distinction that goes back at least as far as Augustine: God discloses himself not only “from the book of Scripture” but even earlier “from the book of nature,” that is, not only through “the light of grace” but also through “the light of nature.”40 Gerhard further distinguished “the light of nature” into two parts: the knowledge of God that comes from the inner nature of human beings, including especially the conscience that relates to God’s moral law within the individual, and the knowledge of God that comes from the external world, through the works of creation.41 This natural knowledge of God is not saving knowledge, since it does not really help people before God, but it does serve as an important, preliminary knowledge of God that is only clarified and fulfilled (and surpassed) with the special revelation of God in Jesus through the Spirit. As an important Reformed confession puts the matter: “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence,

Mirror of God’s Goodness: A Key Metaphor in Calvin’s View of Man,” in The Old Protestantism and the New (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982), 131–59. 35. Calvin, ICR, I.3.1 (1.43). 36. Ibid., I.4.1 (1.47). 37. Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1555), 11. 38. Ibid. 39. Cf. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 1–8. 40. Johann Gerhard, On the Nature of God and On the Most Holy Mystery of the Trinity (1625), ed. Benjamin T. Mayes, trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis: Concordia, 2007), 58 (§59); cf. Gerhard, On the Nature of Theology, 33–4 (§17). 41. Gerhard, On the Nature of God, 59–61 (§60).

151

152

Fundamental Theology

do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.”42 Because of the reality of sin that adversely affects all aspects of human creaturely being, including their reasoning, human beings are incapable of freeing themselves from sin and its corrupting influence on their knowledge of God. In themselves, even with their natural knowledge of God, they are incapable of trusting God for their every good, and thus they stand under God’s criticizing judgment as well as under God’s promising grace. While human reason is a gift of the Creator and fully capable of arriving at accurate knowledge of the universe vouchsafed by the Creator, in this theological perspective it is incapable of arriving at accurate, saving knowledge of God. On the one hand, Luther’s Small Catechism affirms human reason and the senses as gifts from the Creator: “I believe … God has given me and still preserves my body and soul: eyes, ears, and all limbs and senses; reason and all mental faculties.”43 On the other hand, Luther affirms that only the truth of the gospel, as attested in Holy Scripture, gives true and saving knowledge of God, and that this knowledge is given as a divine promise that can only be received by faith: “I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy, and kept me in the true faith.”44 Such a theological position is consistent with Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 2.14-16: Those who are natural [or unspiritual] do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny. “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

With the emergence of modernity in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, philosophy, the natural sciences, and jurisprudence became more and more liberated from the authority of Christian theology, and this emancipation had significant implications for understandings of a so-called natural knowledge of God. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes (1596–1650), who was born fifty years after the death of Luther, made radical doubt his methodological principle for establishing legitimate knowledge. The highly influential Descartes held that unless something could be absolutely proved through reason or demonstration, it should be discarded as a basis of knowledge. 42. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Art. 1/1, in Creeds of the Churches, 3rd edn, ed. John H. Leith (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 193. 43. Luther, Small Catechism (The Creed), BC, 354. 44. Ibid. (trans. modified).

The Natural Knowledge of God

As a result, the traditional, premodern Christian way of relating natural reason to supernatural revelation, wherein “faith” is prior to “understanding,” became gradually reversed. Now the thinking person’s reason, as it strove to be certain about actual knowledge, was prior to and above divine revelation and faith. The Cartesian “thinking I” stands over against the world as an independent (epistemological) norm, and this gives rise to significant doubts about the objective reality of God and even the world, both of which could in fact be illusions or projections of the thinking self—or the deceptive product of an evil and untrustworthy deity. Only by first establishing himself as a thinker, as a “thinking I,” could Descartes then take the next steps of asking how he could have knowledge of that which is outside of him, the world and God.45 Descartes was himself convinced that the idea of God was innate, that God “cannot be a deceiver,” and that in fact the concept of God—which he thought must be produced by the perfect, eternal, and almighty Supreme Being—is the inherent principle of all philosophical certainty, including the certainty that the world itself exists and that it can be understood rationally.46 While Descartes thus held that the concept of God is the normative basis for the structure of human thought—and that the nonexistence of God is an impossible thought—later thinkers using Cartesian philosophy became less and less certain of the inherent conceivability of God. The transition from seventeenth-century Protestant Orthodoxy to seventeenthand eighteenth-century Deism (based on the term deus, the Latin word for “God”) was made easier by the fact that both movements were highly rationalistic and sought to make logical deductions from first principles. Whereas the earliest Protestant theologians at least tried to maintain the medieval unity between “the book of nature” and “the book of Scripture,” Deism made a sharp separation between the two and insisted that human reason is always the sole normative criterion of truth, including with respect to any supposed divine revelation. The desire to find a universal, rational criterion of religious truth was, in part, meant to move the various actual, historical religions and their adherents away from their religious differences— and the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that resulted in part from those contradictory religious claims—toward that upon which, Deists and their allies believed, all rational people could agree. After carefully examining many of the known religions of the world, Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1582–1648), the father of English Deism, concluded that God “has 45. René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), in The Philosophical Texts of René Descartes, vol. 2, trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). While the famous phrase “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) never appears in any of his published writings, it does represent his concern to ground philosophical reflection in the certain selfconsciousness of the thinker. 46. Ibid., 35.

153

154

Fundamental Theology

bestowed common notions upon men in all ages as media of his divine universal providence.”47 These “common notions” included the belief that one God exists, that this God is to be worshiped, that the chief way to worship God is by practicing virtue, that evil is to be avoided and repentance of sins is to be done, and that God will reward the good people and punish the wicked after death.48 The next major philosophical voice, John Locke (1632–1704), rejected as contrary to reason any proposition that is inconsistent with or irreconcilable to “clear and distinct” ideas. Locke still held that genuine religious knowledge can be uncovered by human reason and can affirm those propositions that are “above” reason but not contrary to it. Similar to Aquinas, he thought Christian teachings such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the resurrection of the dead were not necessarily contrary to reason but were “above” it. But once revealed, they were capable of being understood rationally. Locke’s near contemporary, John Toland (1670–1722), however, disagreed with Locke on this point. He thought there could be no truths “above reason.” Later Deists, such as Matthew Tindal (1655–1733), endeavored to set forth the thesis that the gospel is simply a reiteration of the original, natural religion that is common to all human beings of every time and place. In this view, “rational religion” is “moral religion,” whose goal is the cultivation of virtue. In this way the theological content of Deism became rather slim. The content of revelation becomes wholly rationalized and limited to the notion of God as the impersonal First Cause of the universe and the moral arbiter in the afterlife. The Deist God, sometimes conceived as a divine “watchmaker” who created the world and then set it in motion on its own, thus remains more or less uninvolved with the world, and limited to the articulation of certain moral principles. For most Deists God is a rather absent, uncaring deity. The theological content in the philosophy of the eighteenth-century Scottish thinker David Hume (1711–76) was even slimmer: if there is any natural knowledge of God, it can only amount to a vague, ambiguous sense that the apparent order in the universe has been caused by an intelligence that bears some analogy to human intelligence. But humans have no way of knowing anything about this intelligence for certain.49 Against Deists and other rationalists, Hume asserted that all perceptions of the human mind are either impressions of sense experience or ideas that have come from these sense impressions, which the mind has received in a purely passive 47. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, De Veritate, 3rd edn, trans. Meyrick H. Carré (Bristol: J. W. Arrowsmith, 1937), 117–18. 48. For a summary of the thought of Cherbury and the other English Deists mentioned here, see James C. Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, 2 vols, 2nd edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997–2000), 1.15–24. 49. E. C. Mossner, The Life of David Hume (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1954), 21.

The Natural Knowledge of God

manner. For Hume, there are no innate ideas, certainly not the innate idea of God; all knowledge comes from empirical experience. Because what is sensed as occurring in reality cannot be established beyond the appearance of a probability, even “causality” (e.g., that hitting a pool ball with a stick “causes” it to roll across the table) is merely the result of habit and inference. There is therefore no real and certain knowledge, certainly not of anything metaphysical or of God.50 Hume concluded that even the “self ” and objects in the external world cannot be established with certainty. Rather, they are merely the result of habits of sense perception, and that they could easily be vain illusions. While Immanuel Kant overcame Hume’s radical skepticism by analyzing how the human mind in some respects imposes its own form of cognition (space, time, causality, etc.) a priori upon the materials of experience that are sensed and thus makes possible a real knowledge of “phenomena” in the empirical world, he nevertheless maintained that one cannot truly know anything that transcends the sensible world. All attempts to prove (or disprove, for that matter) the reality and attributes of God from reason and observation are thus completely fruitless.51 According to Kant, all of the traditional rational “proofs” for the existence of God (which will be examined in the next chapter) are wrongheaded. The only approach to God, according to him, is through “practical reason,” wherein God, the freedom of the individual, and the immortality of the soul are “postulates” of human reason, that is, they are necessary for the fulfillment of moral duty and the attainment of the highest good, but they are not direct, certain “knowledge.”52 In Kant’s view, God must be a kind of guarantor who will make sure that free moral agents will receive in the afterlife the just consequence of their actions. Only an omnipotent and omniscient Being could do this, so it is thus rational to “postulate” that such a God is real. Following Hume and Kant, Protestant theologians have tended to be skeptical about the possibility of a natural knowledge of God based on reasoning or observation of the natural world. While agreeing with Kant that the traditional natural knowledge of God was no longer possible, Friedrich Schleiermacher nevertheless did allow for a kind of “natural experience” of God, which he located in the individual’s “sense and taste for the infinite,” an “intuition and feeling of the infinite,” that arises from one’s relation to “the world” or “the whole” of reality.53 For Schleiermacher “God” and “the world” belong together, but they are not identical to each other. He later referred to this experience of the “intuition and feeling of

50. See esp. David Hume, Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1777), 3rd edn, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 5–55. 51. Cf. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 495–531. 52. Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, 111–53. 53. Schleiermacher, On Religion, 102–40.

155

156

Fundamental Theology

the infinite” as one’s immediate self-consciousness that one is in relation to God as creature to Creator, which he also described as “a feeling of absolute dependence upon God.”54 According to Schleiermacher, Christian theology is not based on rational metaphysics or speculation, as in the older forms of natural theology, or on moral experience, as in Kant’s postulation of the reality of God, but upon the more elemental religious sense or feeling that undergirds all thought and action. That deep sense or feeling is itself determined by a particular “mode of faith” in God, of being in relation to God, within a given historical religious community.55 “Christian faith,” this particular mode of faith in God, is distinct from “knowing” (metaphysics and the philosophy of religion) and from “doing” (morality, ethics).56 For Schleiermacher, the essence of religion or piety, grounded in the feeling of absolute dependence upon God, can only be an abstraction from the Christian way of having “faith.” In this view of religion, God is indeed immediately present to human beings but cannot be isolated as an object of direct thought. Moreover, contrary to the Deists who reduced all religions to a kind of universal common denominator and whose ideas conflicted with individuals’ experiences of absolute dependence upon God (since for them “God” is “a being” that is external to the universe), Schleiermacher held that religion is uniquely particular and historical and therefore takes quite varied and distinct forms. The variety of religions in the world is the result of the manifold human responses to the common feeling of absolute dependence upon God. It is no exaggeration to say that for Schleiermacher religion refers to that human situation or event—traditional Christian theology had called it “revelation”—which has its origin within the inner dispositions of the believing individual. Because its shape is determined within a specific religious-social group (for him the Evangelical-Protestant Church in Prussia), it cannot be described as “knowledge” per se. He did think that this religious disposition, which he was willing to call “revelation,” is divinely caused, but he was unwilling “to accept the definition that divine causality would be a working on humans in their role as cognitive beings.”57 In this way, then, Schleiermacher defended both the independence (and integrity) of people’s religious experience, which he believed is grounded in the very structure of human existence, and the theological assertions of the modern Christian consciousness that reflect this experience (here “religious knowledge” comes back into view). At the same time, he acknowledged the legitimacy of the modern sciences

54. Schleiermacher, CF, §4.2–4 (1.22–7) et passim. 55. Ibid., §10 (1.67–79). 56. Ibid., §3 (1.8–18). 57. Ibid., §10, postscript (1.76).

The Natural Knowledge of God

and of their methods to uncover accurate knowledge of the universe. He further argued that contemporary theologians must also take into account and reflect upon such scientific knowledge, insofar as it overlaps with their theological concerns about the universe and human purpose. With respect to God and God’s attributes, Schleiermacher held that the awareness of one’s being absolutely dependent upon God means that the Christian theologian can legitimately speak of God as eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, unconditioned, and undivided. But all such discussion is limited to how God is apprehended in the religious self-consciousness, which for the Christian is entirely shaped by the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ. This teaching cannot be understood as objective knowledge of God as God is “in himself,” which was the same restriction that earlier theologians (e.g., Augustine, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin) had maintained as well.58 Half a century after the death of Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl stressed the same point when he argued that God can only be known in the specific act of salvation through Jesus Christ by which humans receive God’s selfrevelation. God is “known” in no other way.59 Karl Barth has been the one major theologian in the Christian tradition to reject entirely any natural knowledge of God that precedes the revelation of God in Christ and prepares for it. Barth’s criticism of all natural theologies led him to be critical of all religions, including Christianity, as human phenomena that reflect human sin and idolatry. For Barth, who desired to break completely with the liberal Protestant tradition in which he had been educated, the revelation of God is exclusively a revelation from God and centers entirely upon the Word of God that is revealed in and through Jesus Christ—“the one Word of God which we are to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death,” to quote from the Theological Declaration of Barmen that Barth coauthored.60 In Barth’s view, and that of theologians who follow him, there is and can be no general revelation of God that all people share. Over against Schleiermacher’s interpretation of religious experience, Barth held that natural human “religiosity” and religious feeling always stand in sharp opposition to the subject of Christian faith. All attempts to understand God “from below”—whether from human experience, philosophical reflection, or any kind of natural knowledge of God that might be innate to human beings or derived from the world as creation—only end up with an idol god of human imagination, not the living God who addresses human beings in the single Word of God. Not surprisingly, Barth quoted favorably from the 58. Ibid., §11 (1.11). 59. Albrecht Ritschl, Instruction in the Christian Religion, 4th edn (1886), trans. Alice Mead Swing, in Albert Temple Swing, The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl, 171–3. 60. The Theological Declaration of Barmen (http://mat​thew​lbec​ker.blogs​pot.com/2012/10/peric​ope-of-weektheo​logi​cal.html [accessed November 23, 2022]).

157

158

Fundamental Theology

writings of atheist philosophers such as Feuerbach and Nietzsche, who attacked all religions as the product of illusory human wish-fulfillments—though Barth denied their conclusion that all faith was fallacious. Barth’s total rejection of natural theology became most clear in his debate with his contemporary theologian Emil Brunner (1889–1966) over the starting point of Christian theology, a debate that led to their estrangement from one another for several decades.61 Whereas Barth maintained that theology can only begin from its own starting point in the one divine revelation of the one Word of God from above, Brunner argued that the NT itself refers to a revelation of God apart from Christ, namely, the revelation of the anger (or wrath) of God (Rom. 1.18). Brunner held that this revelation, while itself inadequate, is preparatory to the full and clear revelation of God in Christ. The general revelation of God, and the human failing it exposes, serves as the presupposition to God’s saving, special revelation in Jesus Christ. According to Brunner, all human beings possess rationality and language, grounded in the image of God, which, though damaged by sin, still provide them a “point of contact” (Anknüpfungspunkt) for the general revelation of God. Within this general revelation of God, God is experienced as judge, from whose judgments sinners need to be liberated. While both Barth and Brunner agreed that divine revelation comes totally from God, from above, Brunner held that human beings have within them the creaturely conditions for the reception of that revelation. Barth totally rejected this view and denounced Brunner’s position with a sharplyworded “No!” For Barth divine revelation itself creates the conditions for its reception. Every attempt to find a point of contact in sinful human beings for divine revelation ends up repudiating the uniqueness of Christ as God’s Word to creatures. In the view of Barth—who wrote during a time when Christians in Germany were redefining and distorting Christian belief and practice to fit with the racist National Socialism of the Nazis—every natural theology is a theology of the “Anti-Christ” that actually supports idolatry. For Barth the sole task of Christian theology is to proclaim the one Word of God to sinful human beings, who have totally lost the image of God in the “original creation” of Gen. 1.26-27. Barth’s reading of Rom. 1.18-20 led him to the conclusion that God is completely hidden and inaccessible apart from the divine self-giving in Christ alone.62 Barth’s rejection of all forms of a natural knowledge of God has met with some acceptance from a few theologians, but has generally encountered widespread

61. For the principal documents in the debate, see John Baillie, ed., Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and Grace” by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the Reply “No!” by Dr. Karl Barth, trans. Peter Fraenkel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002). 62. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 2nd edn (1921; 6th edn, 1928), trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 42–8.

The Natural Knowledge of God

criticism.63 Most Christian theologians, even among Protestants, do not think that the image of God has been totally lost and corrupted because of human sin. Chief among those who have been critical of Barth’s position (aside from Brunner) have been confessional Lutheran theologians, such as Werner Elert; Roman Catholic theologians, such as Karl Rahner; conservative Protestants who maintain the traditional position of Luther and Calvin on this question; and more liberal Protestants, such as Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich. For Werner Elert, there is a genuine, common, accessible experience of God apart from Christ, but it is sharply different from the mercy of God given in Christ. Apart from Christ, God is partially known as moral Judge through the conscience. But this power is more directly experienced as divine threat through the experience of “fate” (that which is sent you in life, such as your biological parents, your genes, and other factors that condition your existence), religious anxiety, suffering, and death in human life and history.64 In the case of Rahner, who was deeply influenced by Aquinas, there is “a more original, unthematic and unreflexive knowledge of God” that is the result of the human being’s “basic and original orientation towards absolute mystery,” which constitutes the “fundamental experience of God,” which is a “transcendental orientation toward mystery.”65 Rahner says: “The unthematic and ever-present experience, this knowledge of God which we always have even when we are thinking of and concerned with anything but God, is the permanent ground from out of which the thematic knowledge of God emerges which we have in explicitly religious activity and philosophical reflection.”66 In his book Spirit in the World, Rahner strove to overcome the Kantian position that human beings can have no metaphysical knowledge, and to articulate an Augustinian-Thomist position that real “world-transcending knowledge” is in fact possible, even though all human knowledge is tied up with sense experience of this world.67 Human beings have a “preapprehension” of God (a “preconcept” that is directed toward God), Rahner held, which is a real knowledge of God. But it is a knowledge of God as the undefined and absolute mystery of the world that is tied to human experience of the world.68 This knowledge points to realities beyond this world and summons human beings 63. Otto Weber (1902–66) was among those who supported Barth’s position. See Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, 2 vols, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–3), 1.199–218. 64. See Becker, “Werner Elert (1885–1954),” 99. 65. Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 52. 66. Ibid., 53. 67. See Karl Rahner and J. B. Metz, Spirit in the World, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968). 68. Cf. Karl Rahner, Hearers of the Word, trans. Michael Richards (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 59–68.

159

160

Fundamental Theology

toward the transcendent, namely, God, “the absolute good which is absolute being.”69 It is this “preapprehension” of the transcendent, of God, that serves as the condition for the possibility that a human being is open to hearing God’s revelation in Jesus, which is the revelation (to use Tillich’s language) of “the ground of one’s being” and the being of all other beings.70 For Bultmann, human beings are able to receive and understand God’s revelation in Christ only because they first have a “pre-understanding” of that gospel apart from Christ.71 Because the Christian message is a message of the forgiveness of sins, the message implies continuity between “the old human being,” who is trapped by sin (“curved in on oneself,” to cite Luther’s image for sin), and “the new human being,” who is a forgiven sinner.72 While Bultmann agreed with Barth against Brunner that there is no point of contact within a human being that makes possible the reception of God’s revelation, he did think, contrary to Barth, that human sinners had a pre-understanding of themselves apart from the gospel that makes possible the reception of the gospel message. This innate “receptivity” indeed becomes radically changed with the acceptance of the gospel in faith. Through Christian faith individuals come to a new understanding of themselves. The natural self-understanding of the sinner comes to be questioned and is then transformed for the better through the revelation of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ. With respect to this natural knowledge of the sinner, Bultmann had in mind a theological understanding of the ancient concept of the human conscience, to which the Christian message is addressed (2 Cor. 4.2). He also had in mind the human experience of being beset by one’s “own desires and fears,” of being “helpless before the unknown, before the enigma.”73 This too prepares one to hear the Christian message and to respond decisively in faith, which overcomes one’s natural knowledge of self and the enigma of God as threat and judge. In a similar way, Tillich argued that natural knowledge about one’s self and about the world can lead to “the question of the ground of our being.” To these questions, revelation, “the manifestation of that which concerns us ultimately,” namely, the ground of our being or “God,” is the proper response.74 While Tillich, like Barth, rejected the traditional terms and purposes of natural revelation and natural theology, he nonetheless interpreted revelation as that which “points to the mystery of existence and to our ultimate concern” in a way that is reminiscent of Schleiermacher’s “sense of the infinite.”75 Tillich pointed out that people inevitably ask: “Why something, not nothing? Am I not jolted by the threat of ‘non-being’ to my ‘being,’ by ‘the shock and stigma of 69. Ibid., 103. 70. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.110. 71. Rudolf Bultmann, “The Problem of ‘Natural Theology,’ ” in Faith and Understanding, 315. 72. Ibid. For Luther’s famous image for sin, see his Lectures on Romans (1515–16), LW1, 25.345. 73. Bultmann, “The Problem of ‘Natural Theology,’ ” 319. 74. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.119, 110. 75. Ibid., 1.117.

The Natural Knowledge of God

nonbeing?’ ”76 These are human questions that give rise to an openness to transcendence, to the manifestation of “the ground and abyss of our being”; in other words, the religious dimension of human life. Like Jaspers, Tillich called this “the depth dimension” of human existence that points to what is ultimate and unconditioned in life, namely, to that which sustains one’s being and gives the fullest meaning of one’s life.77 Thus, “The object of theology is what concerns us ultimately. Only those propositions are theological which deal with their object in so far as it can become a matter of ultimate concern for us.”78 Following Paul and Luther, Tillich held that human beings tend to put their unconditional trust in finite, temporal, and thus mutable objects in this world, as if they were the ultimate, infinite source of one’s meaning and existential security and could truly be able to save human beings. Humans are inherently religious beings who inveterately worship idols and not that which truly determines their being or nonbeing. Here, Tillich and Barth approximate one another in their respective criticisms of human idol-making. Other theologians who refused to accept Barth’s complete rejection of a natural knowledge of God included Edmund Schlink and his most well-known student, Wolfhart Pannenberg. For Schlink—who had studied under Barth and had also opposed the Nazification of the Protestant churches in Germany—the human creature has knowledge of God as Creator and law-giver, which is experienced not only in the conscience but also in one’s familial-social-political community. Thus, one becomes aware of God’s judgment and wrath through the experiences of sin, anxiety, guilt, suffering, and death.79 For Pannenberg the revelation of Christ “presupposes the fact that the world and humanity belong to, and know, the God who is proclaimed by the gospel,” even though an entirely new light is shed on this fact by the revelation of God in Christ.80 Precisely because the Logos came “to his own” (Jn 1.11), though his own did not receive him, “The ones who did not receive him were not strangers but from the very first they were his own people. If this is so, then it cannot have been totally alien to their being or their knowledge, for the being of creatures, even of sinners, is constituted by the creative presence of God, his Logos, and his Spirit among them.”81 Through the creation God discloses the knowledge of his deity (Rom. 1.20), something that has occurred long before the coming of Jesus. But this revelation of God is not simply a human possibility. (Here Pannenberg thought Barth was correct.) But Pannenberg held that this knowledge is a revelation of God from God through God’s creation. It exposes human beings as sinners when they worship false gods, “beings that by 76. Ibid., 1.120. 77. Cf. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.96, 199. 78. Ibid., 1.12. 79. See Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.213–25, 243–71; 2/2.1131–4. 80. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.75. 81. Ibid.

161

162

Fundamental Theology

nature are not gods” (Gal. 4.8). This statement of Paul implies, of course, that the God revealed in the gospel he proclaimed is the only true God, the Creator of the cosmos. Here Pannenberg again agreed with Barth: the God revealed in the gospel is “the only God who is God by nature.”82 In view of the above survey of historic views on natural theology, what conclusions can we draw about a Christian understanding of the natural knowledge of God? In keeping with the mainstream currents of Christian thought that come forth from the apostles Paul and John and that were flowing already in the witness of the Hebrew prophets and psalmists, and contrary to the radical assertions of Barth, Christian theology must continue to affirm some natural knowledge of God, if only in a very limited way as a sense or an awareness of the divine. While some cognitive scientists boldly assert that such a sense is merely the illusory result of hidden cognitive mechanisms, others point out that the evolution of such a human cognitive faculty by natural processes does not (and could not) demonstrate the divine to be necessarily an illusion. It could well be that there is a completely natural (or even evolutionary) explanation for the awareness of the divine and that the divine also exists.83 The sense of some divine reality stands as the “unconditioned” force behind the multiplicity of gods, idols, and religions in the world, as Paul seems to suggest in Rom. 1.19-20. By the very nature of the case, all definitions of “the essence” of “religion” are inadequate, since the experience of “the Other” in various world religions cannot be fully fathomed. But the perspectives of Schleiermacher, Rudolf Otto, Mircea Eliade (1907–86), and Tillich do justice to the fact that all religions—whether overtly theistic or not—have to do with Someone or something beyond the individual to whom the individual stands in a necessary relationship, who confronts the individual with a total claim, and whose ultimate, holy mystery remains elusive to human beings. To Otto’s notions of “dread” and “fascination” must be added the additional element of “trust,” as Luther stressed in his definition of what constitutes a “god.”84 So Luther acknowledged that (to use Otto’s key concept) “the Holy” need not be a supernatural or transcendent object, or even a personal deity. It could be anything of “ultimate concern” (the phrase which Tillich thought also captured Luther’s basic view), namely, that which makes a total claim upon the individual and invites an ultimate, total commitment. In this sense, even the atheistic humanist has “faith” and 82. Ibid., 1.79. 83. There might be “a perfectly good natural explanation of the god-faculty and the beliefs it produces … but it might also be true that a personal God providentially guided these natural processes so that people would acquire true belief in God. Both the natural and supernatural explanations may be true” (Kelly James Clark and Justin L. Barrett, “Reidian Religious Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79/3 [September 2011]: 655). By “god-faculty” they are referring to a cognitive mechanism in the human mind that produces beliefs in spiritual agencies and powers such as gods or God. 84. Luther, Large Catechism (Ten Commandments), BC, 386.

The Natural Knowledge of God

a “god,” as perhaps does the nontheist as well—even if that “god” is humanity itself, and “faith” is a confidence in the advance of scientific and technological knowledge. Of course, following the teaching of the apostle Paul, Tillich pointed out that many people place their ultimate trust in that which is not truly ultimate. They put their complete confidence in that which is a finite thing, and not the infinite, true God, who alone is “categorically supreme.”85 Christian theology must continue to wrestle both with the apostles’ and early Christians’ criticisms of non-Christian religions and with the apostles’ and early Christian apologists’ attempts to build bridges between non-Christian religious experience and the proclamation of the gospel of God in Jesus Christ. This wrestling will take seriously the psalmist’s statement that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Ps. 19.1), the biblical assertion that human beings have been created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1.26-27), the apostle Paul’s statements about the plain knowledge of God that can be “clearly perceived” (Rom. 1.20), and the assertion that God is near to everyone (Acts 17). According to the apostles and early Christian theologians, many world religions may be correct in the questions that they ask about the Holy One or the sacred, but they are incorrect in the answers that they have discovered. Sinful people have turned from the true and living God, whose invisible nature can be perceived through the things that have been made, in order to put their ultimate trust in finite gods of their own making and in religious answers of their own devising. True answers about the Holy One, however, cannot be discovered through human action or thinking; they are known only in the self-revelation of the Holy One in Jesus Christ. While God’s “eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1.20) are indeed implicit in his creation, their full import becomes explicit only in his special revelation. Before we turn to consider that special revelation, however, we need to devote more attention to philosophical and theological arguments about the reality of God. They will be the focus of the next two chapters.

Questions for review and discussion 1. Why do Christians insist that God is not real in the same way that created reality is real? Why do some Christian theologians stress that God is a Subject but not an object?

85. Charles Hartshorne, “Introduction,” in Philosophers Speak of God, ed. Charles Hartshorne and William I. Reese (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 7.

163

164

Fundamental Theology









2. For Christians, what is the difference between general revelation and special revelation? 3. According to the apostle Paul, what does “nature” reveal about God? 4. What do Christian theologians mean by the expression “natural knowledge of God?” What are the contents of this knowledge? 5. How did Descartes change the traditional Christian relationship between “reason” and “faith” (in contrast to how Augustine and Anselm understood this relationship)? 6. How did the Deists understand the relationship between “the two books of God” (nature and the Bible)? Which of these books was more important to them? Do you agree with their position on this issue? 7. Be familiar with the basic understanding of natural theology by Schleiermacher, Barth, Brunner, Elert, Rahner, Bultmann, Tillich, and Pannenberg. Which of these positions do you favor? Is there a position that you find weak or problematic? 8. Why was Barth critical of all natural theologies? Who had the stronger argument, Barth or Brunner? 9. Of the theologians analyzed here, which one, if any, best reflects your own understanding about the possibility of a natural knowledge of God? 10. What is your “ultimate concern?” To what or toward whom do you look “for all good” and in which you “find refuge in every need?”

Suggestions for further reading Reference works on general revelation and the philosophy of religion William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, 2nd edn (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). [A standard reference work that contains sections on general revelation, religious experience, and the possibility of a Christian natural theology. Contains helpful summaries of arguments for and against the reality of God.] Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper, and Philip L. Quinn, eds., A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, 2nd edn (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). [This work examines a variety of issues in the philosophy of religion, focusing on the major religious traditions.] William J. Wainwright, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). [Contains essays on problems and approaches in the philosophy of religion.]

The Natural Knowledge of God

Brief introductions to God and revelation Peter Antes and Stephen W. Sykes, “Revelation,” EC, 4.672–7. Gordon Campbell, “God,” ODCC, 1.790–3. David A. S. Fergusson, “Revelation,” OCCT, 618–21. Adrian Hastings, “God,” OCCT, 269–74. Otto Kaiser, Markus Bockmuehl, Christoph Schwöbel, and Jürgen Werbick, “Revelation III–V: Old Testament, New Testament, Christianity,” RPP, 11.165–75. Timothy Kelly, “Revelation,” ODCC, 2.1648. Ben Quash, “Revelation,” OHST, 325–44. John J. Scullion and Jouette M. Bassler, “God,” ABD, 2.1041–55. S. David Sperling, Reginald H. Fuller, Louis Jacobs, and John B. Cobb, Jr., “God,” ER, 6.1–26. Hartmut Zinser, Otto Kaiser, Andreas Lindemann, Vincent Brümmer, Christoph Schwöbel, Niels Henrik Gregersen, Michael Meyer-Blanck, Robert Schreiter, Markus Vinzent, Hans-Jürgen Becker, Gerold Necker, and Rotraud Wielandt, “God,” RPP 5.459–484.

Classic statements on general revelation Aquinas, ST, I.2; I.12. Calvin, ICR, I.39–69. For Luther, see Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, 15–82. For older Lutheran Protestant views, see Schmidt, Doctrinal Theology, 103–29. For older Reformed Protestant views, see Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 1–11. Schleiermacher, CF, §§3–11 (1.8–89).

More recent statements on general and special revelation (see also the works recommended at the end of Chapter 7) Barth, CD, I/1.47–489; II/1.3–254. [Barth’s most sustained and mature treatment of the topic of divine revelation.] Emil Brunner, Dogmatics, 2 vols, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950, 1952), 1.117–32. [While Brunner shared some of the critical concerns that Barth had about liberal Protestantism, he and Barth differed about the nature of human beings to receive God’s revelation. Brunner maintained the classic Protestant view that human beings have a “point of contact” with the divine—through general revelation—that prepares them to receive the proclamation of the gospel.] Rudolf Bultmann, “The Problem of ‘Natural Theology,’ ” Faith and Understanding, 313– 31. [A major Protestant critique of all attempts to ground the knowledge of God by means of reflection on empirical reality.] Stephen T. Davis, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, ed. Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

165

166

Fundamental Theology

2009), 30–53. [A helpful, brief summary of the relationship between revelation and inspiration.] Dei Verbum (The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), Tanner, 2.971–81. [The landmark statement on revelation as understood within the Roman Catholic Church. Revelation is linked to participation in God’s self-giving reconciliation offered and interpreted in the Roman Church.] Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 21–45. [A very good overview of the basic positions with respect to the knowledge that we can receive of God.] Gerald O’Collins, Revelation: Towards a Christian Interpretation of God’s Self-revelation in Jesus Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). [An important proposal by a leading Roman Catholic (Jesuit) theologian, who distinguishes between God’s primary self-revelation in a living encounter with God and “propositional” revelation that is contained in church statements of faith, confessional documents, etc.] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.63–257. [Pannenberg sets forth and further defends his understanding of divine revelation as taking place at the close of the age but which has been proleptically given in Jesus and his resurrection from the dead.] Plantinga, Thompson, and Lundberg, An Introduction to Christian Theology, 49–76. [A helpful overview by leading Reformed theologians in America.] Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 44–71, 138–321. [A classic presentation of the topic by a leading Roman Catholic theologian of the twentieth century.] Schlink, “The Knowledge of God,” “The Knowledge of the World,” and “The Knowledge of God and the Doctrine of God,” in Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.69–170. [A major twentieth-century Lutheran statement on the nature of divine revelation (through law and gospel) and the faith responses to the gospel. Schlink has significantly informed the analysis in this chapter as well as in Chapter 7 on special revelation.] Paul R. Sponheim, “The Knowledge of God,” in Christian Dogmatics, ed. Braaten and Jenson, 1.197–264. [This Lutheran locus offers an accounting of divine revelation that reflects emphases within process theology.] Helmut Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, 3 vols, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–82), 2.1–258. [Similar to other twentieth-century German Lutheran theologians, Thielicke stressed that divine revelation is first and foremost God’s self-disclosure in law and gospel. Like Bultmann and Barth, Thielicke was critical of traditional understandings of natural theology, and he highlighted the dynamic word of God (in law and gospel) that creates and sustains faith.] Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.79–210. [Tillich’s mature treatment that explores the tensions and ambiguities between human reason and the dynamics of divine revelation.]

5 Natural and Philosophical Theology This chapter describes several of the more important rational arguments for the reality of God and the main criticisms developed against them. Included are Anselm’s ontological argument, Kant’s moral argument, Aquinas’s “five ways,” more recent versions of the teleological argument by Swinburne and Flew, an argument by Plantinga, Lewis’s moral argument, an argument from beauty, as well as Pascal’s “wager.”

The concern to clarify the nature and basis of the natural knowledge of God has led some Christian theologians to develop what they consider to be rational arguments and even “proofs” for the existence of God. They argue for a type of Christian theism, in which reason itself points toward religious conviction.1 The perennial possibility of atheism has also contributed to the articulation of these arguments. They are often presented under the label of natural theology, since many of them proceed from reflection on the natural world and involve mere natural human reason apart from special revelation. The last chapter traced the history of Christian theologians’ debates about the possibility of a natural knowledge of God. This chapter examines in detail exactly how some Christian thinkers have made rational philosophical analysis a key component of their theology. Such arguments for the reality of God have largely developed in dialogue with philosophical reflection on God as the creating and preserving cause of all things and the source of all wisdom. It may help to remember that the classical meaning of the term philosophy is “love of wisdom,” and that both pre-Christian Greeks (such as Pythagoras [c. 570–c. 495 BC]) and Christians (such as Augustine) have held that 1. The term theism is also related to the Greek term theos (“god”). Theism within philosophy refers to rational discussion about the nature of God. “Classical theism” is built upon Greek philosophical reflection on the nature and attributes of God (often apart from any consideration of the special revelation of God in Israel and Jesus).

168

Fundamental Theology

wisdom itself is the proper possession of God alone, a quality toward which humans are only able to strive and never fully attain. Sometimes, however, arguments for the reality of God do not proceed from observation on nature but arise from philosophical reflection on a given concept of God, and thus some refer to these arguments as philosophical theology. While philosophical theology can go beyond metaphysics (what is real) and epistemology (how do we know what we know) to include axiology (what should we value), ethics (how should we live), aesthetics (what is beauty), and logic (how should we think correctly), it has historically focused on rational arguments for and against the reality of God. The long history of philosophical theology demonstrates that belief in God is not “blind faith” or a matter of irrational belief. Faith in God “has usually been expounded by the best-known philosophers as the most rational view of the world … It lies at the very basis of acceptance of the intelligibility of the universe, of the importance of morality, and of a deep understanding of the nature of human existence.”2 The goal of natural theology or philosophical theology within the Christian tradition has been to clarify the reality and nature of God as the object of the natural knowledge of God (albeit knowledge that also is understood to agree with the special revelation of God), to understand the divine in accord with its own nature, and “to bring out the unity and uniqueness of the deity in contrast to the multiplicity of gods.”3 In other words, natural/philosophical theology strives to come to a true understanding of the divine or the Holy, in contrast to false understandings. It should be noted, however, that while these rational approaches to God involve human observation, inference, reflection, and interpretation, supposedly unaided by special divine revelation and relying entirely on the natural light of human reason, within the Christian tradition such argumentation tends also to be informed by special revelation—whether or not it is appealed to directly. (We will examine this issue more closely in Chapter 7.) Augustine’s intellectual discovery of the explanatory power of God as the immaterial and infinite source of all that exists—notions that come from both the OT and Greek philosophical traditions, especially Neoplatonism and Stoicism—is a good example of how philosophical reflection on God helped one intensely reflective individual to leave behind his earlier materialistic and dualistic understandings of God and come to see them as deficient and wrongheaded. He no longer believed that God was an extended and infinitely diffused material substance, an idea that to his mind implied that God could be divided and limited by his “materiality.”4 Rather, Augustine came to understand that God is immaterial and eternal. God is the source 2. Keith Ward, God and the Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 1. 3. Christian Link, “Natural Theology,” RPP, 9.55. 4. See, for example, Augustine, The Confessions, V–VII (WSA, I/1.113–83).

Natural and Philosophical Theology

of all perfections and truth, and distinct from all that exists. God is perfect Being, and can be known only within an individual, through one’s soul, not through the senses. God is also the key to understanding the nature, order, and purpose of the cosmos. Augustine emphasized that God is the perfectly good and rational source of all being, who has creatively ordered all things toward himself, their highest good. Unlike Augustine, who did not develop any kind of rational “proof ” for God and who understood God not as an “object” but always as a “Subject,” other theologians within the Christian tradition have, however, developed rational arguments (often through syllogisms) or demonstrations (through reflection on empirical reality) to defend the proposition that “God is.” Many theologians thus have agreed with the basic position of Aquinas, who held that theology cannot proceed to any topic at all without first establishing that God exists: “For, if we do not demonstrate that God exists, every investigation of divine things is necessarily suppressed.”5 Among the more interesting, if enigmatic, arguments for the existence of God is the one developed by Anselm. Since it is not based on sense experience, and begins solely with the concept or idea of God, it is a type of a priori (“from the former”; “from the prior”) argument, one that is based on the very notion of the term God. One needs to note that Anselm did not try to prove the reality of God to nonbelievers; he sought merely to provide a rational explication of the concept of God from within the perspective of believing faith. His famous one-liner bears repeating: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.”6 Anselm thus located his argument within an extended prayer to God, in which he asked for divine illumination. In this context he famously defined God as “that than which a greater cannot be conceived,” that is, the most perfect being that can possibly be imagined.7 Because his argument is based on the concept of God’s being (Greek: ōn, ontes = “being”), it is usually called the ontological argument. Drawing attention to Ps. 14.1 (“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’ ”), Anselm argued that even

5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, 4 vols, trans. Anton Pegis (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1955), I.9 (1.78 [trans. modified]). Aquinas wrote the Summa contra Gentiles (“Summary against the Gentiles”) between 1259 and 1266. He used the word “Gentile” here to refer to non-Christians, namely, ancient pagan thinkers as well as contemporary Jews and Muslims. The proper title of this work is The Truth of the Catholic Faith against the Errors of Unbelievers. This summary of the Catholic faith may have been used to prepare foreign missionaries so that they could defend the faith against Jews and Muslims who contradicted it. 6. Anselm, Proslogium, 1, in St. Anselm: Basic Writings, 53. My summary of Anselm’s argument has been guided by the helpful analysis of Eddie LeRoy Miller, God and Reason: An Invitation to Philosophical Theology, 2nd edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995), 25–43. Other thinkers in the Christian tradition have also noted that people who already believe in the reality of God generally proceed to give reasons for their faith. Such people reflect the statement that Blaise Pascal put in the mouth of God: “You would not seek me if you had not found me” (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer [New York: Penguin, 1966], 314). 7. Anselm, Proslogium, 2, in St. Anselm: Basic Writings, 54.

169

170

Fundamental Theology

atheists can accept the definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” although they will deny that such a being actually exists. But this puts the atheist in the position of being a “fool,” since it is “greater” for a thing to exist in actuality than for it to be a mere idea in one’s head. God must therefore necessarily exist in actuality, and not merely as a concept in the mind, for if God only existed as an idea in one’s head then God would not be God. Something “greater” than this mere idea could still then be conceived, namely, God as existing in reality. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.8

If “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” exists only in our minds, we would then have the paradox that it is still possible to conceive of something greater than this idea, namely, greater because it exists in reality as well as in our minds. But this is impossible. There cannot be anything greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived. Therefore, something that one cannot imagine or conceive being any greater must exist in reality. While many subsequent Christian thinkers have agreed with Anselm’s basic position, such as Descartes (who understood the idea of God as “the most perfect being,” bound up with the idea of “the infinite” that is implanted within human beings) and more recently, Norman Malcolm (1911–90) and Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), others have concluded that the argument is muddled. Just because one has the idea of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” in one’s mind does not make it so in reality. One can conceive of, say, “the most perfect island,” or any other “perfect thing,” but one’s thought of this greatness or perfection does not make the island or any other “perfect thing” necessarily real. This criticism was already leveled against Anselm’s argument by one of his contemporaries, a fellow Christian monk named Gaunilo.9 But Anselm and Descartes and those influenced by them might respond: we are not talking about perfect islands. In that case, their existence cannot be deduced from the mere concept, since the idea of a perfect island does not involve “existence” as one of its essential properties. An island or any other material object does not necessarily exist. By its very nature, an island is a part of the material universe, and its existence is contingent upon other elements in the universe. Its being depends on the being of other beings. God, on the other hand, as the most perfect conceivable being is not contingent upon anything. God has necessary being, and it is more perfect to 8. Ibid. 9. See Gaunilo, In Behalf of the Fool, in St. Anselm, Basic Writings, 308–9.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

have necessary being than merely contingent existence. We are talking solely about “God,” who alone is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. It is “greater” or “more perfect” for something to exist necessarily than to exist contingently. So, if God does not exist then God cannot be what the concept says God is, namely, the greatest or most perfect being. God must exist since existence is a necessary property or perfection of the most perfect being, without which God is not God. The very notion of “God,” which entails all perfections (as Descartes thought), thus includes the existence of God, the nonexistence of which is inconceivable. Anselm’s argument “only applies to the unique case of the most perfect conceivable being.”10 The ontological argument has met with mixed reviews in the centuries subsequent to Anselm. Some, such as the nineteenth-century Lutheran philosopher Hegel, have concluded that it is the most perfect argument for the existence of God, since the idea of God is a necessary thought of human reason. Others judge this argument and later versions of it to involve more smoke and mirrors than careful reasoning. Still others completely reject every a priori argument, including ones for the existence of God, since they argue that real knowledge, including knowledge of God, can only come from inductive reasoning about the empirical world as humans perceive it through their five senses. While God’s existence might be inferred from the world of sense experience, who God ultimately and essentially is remains beyond human comprehension. More significantly, both Hume and Kant have argued that “existence” cannot properly be attributed to the concept of anything: By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing—even if we completely determine it—we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. Otherwise, it would not be exactly the same thing that exists, but something more than we had thought in the concept; and we could not, therefore, say that the exact object of my concept exists.11

In other words, the ontological argument cannot demonstrate the actuality of God. No mere definition of attributes, however perfect they might be, could guarantee the existence of its object. Despite recent attempts to reformulate this argument in a more convincing way (e.g., by eliminating the assertion that “existence” is a predicate of “God”), the basic argument remains open to serious philosophical objection.12 Many conclude that the 10. John Hick, ed., Classical and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964), 465. 11. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 505. 12. For twentieth-century articulations of the ontological argument, see especially Charles Hartshorne, Man’s Vision of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1941); Charles Hartshorne, Anselm’s Discovery (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1965); and Norman Malcolm, “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments,” Philosophical Review 69 (1960): 41–62.

171

172

Fundamental Theology

argument merely demonstrates that if God does in fact exist, God is not a contingent being. Thus, the argument is helpful for the one who already believes in God and who seeks conceptual clarification about the being of God. If God is real, then the attribute of necessary existence must belong to God’s essence. What is not proved in any conclusive way is that God exists.13 Another argument for the reality of God that is also a priori, one that does not proceed from sensible experience, is the so-called moral argument that Kant devised in the eighteenth century. While he rejected all arguments for the existence of God that proceed from sensible experience, he was not an atheist but a rational theist— despite the label “God-destroyer” that was given to him by his detractors. According to Kant, although the mind can conceive of God and assert the realities of God, freedom, and the immortality of the soul as postulates of “practical reason” (where God functions as the ultimate guarantor of justice in the afterlife by rewarding the virtuous and punishing the wicked), there can be no actual philosophical knowledge of God as a supersensible object, since human beings lack the means by which to know this object. As Kant wrote in the preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason (1787), “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”14 In other words, he denied the possibility of any theoretical knowledge of God and criticized the traditional rational arguments for God, but he maintained the necessity of the idea of God as a regulative concept for practical reason, that is, for the moral life. Kant was convinced that most human beings sense the world in which they live to be a moral world: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”15 For him, moral duty and responsibility are given in the moral law, which is just as objective and external to oneself as the stars in the sky. While he refrained from articulating a specific set of universally correct duties and responsibilities, he did insist that the moral sense of right and wrong is universal for all humanity, and thus the moral consciousness is an a priori concept. While specific moral responsibilities and individual customs and laws are defined differently from culture to culture, what does not vary is the sense of moral duty itself, which points to an underlying moral order to the universe, an order not just invented by humans. Moreover, he insisted that one is perfectly rational to think that every human being ought to pursue the highest good, which entails perfect virtue and the happiness that is proportional to virtue. Getting to the highest good must be possible if the idea of moral responsibility is not to be completely empty. Nevertheless, because of the presence of evil in the world, not everyone receives in this life the happiness that ought to be the result of that person’s noble practice of virtue. In other words, 13. John Hick, Arguments for the Existence of God (New York: Seabury Press, 1971), 90. 14. Kant, “Preface to the Second Edition,” The Critique of Pure Reason, 29. 15. Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, 166.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

there is not always agreement between one’s virtuous actions and the achievement of the highest good. Thus, God must be postulated so that individuals can receive the just deserts of their genuinely moral actions throughout life and receive happiness in proportion to their degree of virtue. According to Kant, then, it is “morally necessary to assume the existence of God” because in this life one frequently observes a disconnection between a life of virtue and a lack of happiness. Innocent individuals suffer at the hands of evil people, and the wicked often get away with murder and other injustices. Such a disparity between virtue and happiness in this world is an affront to moral reason and thus requires the existence of God as an omnipotent and omniscient cosmic Judge, who can ensure in the afterlife the correct proportion of ultimate happiness to the level of virtue in each individual’s life. Because there must be an afterlife in order for this apportionment to work justly, the immortality of the soul is also a postulate of moral reason. In this Kantian view, God is the necessary object of moral faith, and “religion within the limits of reason alone” is entirely a matter of morality, of recognizing moral duties as divine commands, and of wanting to clarify universal moral principles that accord with human reason. Without the existence of God and the other postulates of practical reason (i.e., individual freedom to pursue virtue, the immortality of the soul), moral faith—and really any basis for morality at all—collapses. As one can probably surmise, Kant’s moral argument for the reality of God has also not been immune to criticism. Might Kant have simply succumbed to wishful thinking? Postulating God for the sake of vindicating one’s understanding of a concept of justice is not the same as proving or demonstrating the reality of God. For the person who does not accept the initial, a priori idea of an objective moral world order, Kant’s argument and later restatements of it will remain unconvincing. Precisely because of the dubious nature of all a priori arguments for the reality of God, many have tried to arrive at “God” rationally by another route, namely, on the basis of sense experience. Despite their own set of problems, these arguments continue to be defended. Many thinkers, such as Aquinas in the thirteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) in the seventeenth, Hegel in the nineteenth, and still others in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, have found this latter kind of argument much more persuasive than the kind of a priori arguments put forth by Anselm and Kant, since they think real knowledge can only arise through sense experience. This kind of argument is called a posteriori (“from the latter”) or empirical, since it arises as a result of inductive reasoning about observed facts in nature, that is, reasoning from experience or observation. This line of thinking draws attention to some feature of things that is known to us on the basis of our experience (including scientific knowledge and experiment) and then moves from this feature to conclude that God is real. Already in the fourth century, the church father Gregory of Nazianzus (329–389) taught that human perception of the cosmos and of the law of nature teaches that

173

174

Fundamental Theology

God “is” and that God is the cause and preserver of all things.16 In a way similar to Gregory’s position, Aquinas held that “the natural light of the intellect” is able to derive the existence of God from the world of sense experience, but it is incapable of coming to a true and proper understanding of God’s nature as triune (God the eternal Father, the eternal Son, the eternal Holy Spirit).17 Aquinas thus sharply distinguished what is accessible to rational knowledge—which included knowledge based on observation of the world—from what is an article of faith. While he held that the triune nature of God, for example, is an article of faith that is based solely on God’s supernatural revelation, he thought that the reality of God could be rationally demonstrated through five ways of reflecting on sensible experience of the world. His own reflections were themselves guided by Aristotle’s philosophical speculations about God and by theological reflections of Jewish and Muslim scholars. They too discussed affirming the reality of God on the basis of specific knowledge of the empirical world. What Gregory of Nazianzus kept together side-by-side as a twofold argument for the reality of God, Aquinas broke down into three related arguments. He then added two additional ones (for a total of five). He called each of these five arguments a “way” to God.18 The first is usually called the argument from motion. Influenced by Aristotle’s similar argument, Aquinas concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g., the planets, a rolling stone) must be put in motion by some other object or force. While Aquinas acknowledged that some objects, such as people and animals, can move themselves or change themselves, he argued that nothing is completely the source of its own movement or change. From this, Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an unmoved or primary Mover (“God”) who put the very first thing in motion. This argument proceeds on the basis of the observation that nothing can move itself. If every object that is in motion had a prior mover, then the first object in motion itself needed a mover. This first mover is the unmoved Mover, “and this everyone understands to be God.”19 The second way to God is usually called the argument from causation. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an uncaused First Cause (“God”) who began the chain of existence for all things. This argument proceeds on the basis of the observation that things are caused or created by other things. Nothing can be the cause of itself. Since there cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist, there must 16. See Gregory Nazianzus, “Oration 28 (‘The Second Theological Oration’),” VI, NPNF2, 7.290. 17. Aquinas, ST, II/I.62.3; cf. ST, I.1.1, 7–8; and I.2.1–3. 18. For a more complete historical analysis of Aquinas’s “five ways,” see Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, 28–39. 19. Aquinas, ST, I.2.3.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

then be an uncaused First Cause, “which everyone understands to be God.” This is Aquinas’s response to the questions, “Why is there something, not nothing? Why is there change at all? What keeps the process of ‘change’ going at all?” As he stated the matter later in the Summa Theologiae, “We are bound to conclude that everything that is at all real is from God … All things other than God are not their own existence but share in existence.”20 God, then, is the reason there is something, not nothing. God alone exists by nature, with no cause at all; all things depend upon God for their existence. The third way to God is usually called the argument from contingency. This way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can perish (e.g., plants and animals). A necessary being is imperishable; it “must be.” It cannot not be. A contingent being cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being that must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. This argument again proceeds on the basis of the observation that contingent beings are caused. Yet not every being can be contingent on other things. There must exist a being that is necessary to cause all contingent beings. This necessary being is God. These first three “ways” are variations of what is usually called “the cosmological argument” (from the Greek word “kosmos” = “order,” “world,” “universe”). This type of argument for the reality of God appeals to facts about the cause, change, or contingency of the universe’s existence. Essentially this argument maintains that the existence of the universe, in contrast to its character, must be caused by a first cause (which is then usually identified as the monotheistic God of the three Western religions). One form of this argument holds that a first cause must be postulated to account for the beginning of the universe, although Aquinas himself thought that the very existence of the universe implies the existence of a first cause (“God”), whether or not the universe had a beginning.21 Aquinas also set forth two additional arguments that take him beyond Gregory’s twofold argument. The fourth way is often called the argument from degrees of perfection. It is based on the observation of the differing qualities of things in the world. Following Plato, Augustine, and many other thinkers, Aquinas held that the idea of “perfection” implies varying degrees of perfection. For example, one may say that of two paintings one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the other. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this observation Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g., goodness, beauty, or knowledge), there must be a perfect standard by

20. Ibid., I.44.1. 21. Bruno Cassará, “Cosmological argument,” ODCC, 1.486.

175

176

Fundamental Theology

which all such qualities are measured, something that has maximum perfection. This maximal perfection is the source of all perfections, namely, God. The final, fifth way is the argument from design. This is based on the detection of order in nature and the universe. Aquinas held that one can observe in nature that all things operate toward some end or purpose, even when the thing seems to lack consciousness. The operation of the thing observed hardly ever varies and typically tends to turn out well, in such a way that it suggests a purpose, not a chance accident. Here Aquinas was again making use of Aristotle’s philosophy, in this case, his notion of a “final cause,” that is, a goal or purpose toward which an action is undertaken. Aquinas stated that common sense tells us that everything in nature works in such a way that it is directed toward its goal by Someone with intelligence, namely, “God.” In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the Designer. This basic position was given later support by William Paley (1743–1805), who scoured the scientific literature of his day for evidence of design in nature. He compared nature to the discovery of a clock watch, whose intricate design gives rise to the rational inference that the watch had a maker, “That there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”22 Paley’s view fits with Aquinas’s observation that objects in nature seem to act for a purposeful end, which suggests that these objects are directed toward that end by an intelligent being, “by whom all natural things are ordered to their end.”23 What is one to make of Aquinas’s five ways? We should probably note up front that each of the five ways follows the same pattern of argument that indicates his arguments are not entirely a posteriori, even though they incorporate some elements of observation and analysis of the world and nature. In other words, Aquinas’s five ways involve some understanding of God that is a priori. By stating at the end of each of the arguments, “And this is what everybody understands by God,” Aquinas gave a hint that he was already operating with some understanding of who God is, and was not developing that idea based on empirical evidence alone. His arguments thus can help one to confirm the God that one already knows in some other fashion, but are unlikely to persuade someone who has no such idea. This observation is important, as it would suggest that Aquinas’s arguments are not “proofs” per se, but merely his attempts at giving reasons for the faith in God that he already has. Once again we see here examples of a “faith seeking understanding.” We should also point out that each of Aquinas’s five ways to God, and their further elaboration and defense by later thinkers, has received significant criticism over the 22. William Paley, Natural Theology; or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, 6th edn (London: Wilks and Taylor, 1803), 3–4. 23. Aquinas, ST, I.2.3.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

centuries. For example, many have argued that a First Cause of the universe is not necessary. The universe could simply be an everlasting phenomenon, something that is temporally uncaused. The concept of God is therefore no longer necessary in a universe that is viewed as an eternal entity. Some scientists—with no evidence, one should add—have speculated that the universe has had multiple “big bangs,” multiple “big crunches,” multiple “big bounces,” resulting in the so-called “oscillating universe” of repeated expansions and collapses.24 Such a speculative view, however questionable it is, could be used to reject the idea of a First Cause of the universe.25 While some have indeed spoken of God as the temporal cause of the universe and have appealed to the scientific theory of the Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support the argument that the universe had an actual temporal beginning roughly 13.7 billion years ago, and then to argue that God is the cause of the Big Bang, this line of thinking is not what Aquinas had in mind when he spoke of God as the uncaused Cause or the unmoved Mover. According to Aquinas, one could grant the philosophical point that the universe could be eternal, but to acknowledge this as a possibility would still not answer the question, “Why is there a universe rather than nothing?” While Aquinas believed as an article of faith, given through divine revelation (Gen. 1.1), that God created the universe “out of nothing” (ex nihilo), he nevertheless agreed with Aristotle that the unmoved Mover need not be thought of as a first cause in time, but as the first cause in Being. In other words, God is not the cause that gets the universe in motion at a particular point in time in the past, but rather God is the ultimate cause of the temporal processes of the universe at every moment, including the present. For Aquinas, there must exist an ultimate and self-existent “necessary being” (i.e., necessary in itself) upon which all other beings depend for their existence, whatever their location in time.26 Unlike all beings that come into being and then pass away, the eternal and necessary God is eternal and necessary Being, upon whom all other beings depend. This means, too, that God is uncaused, since God transcends space and time and since the necessary cause of all sensible things cannot itself be one of those “things.” Of course, for the person who is convinced that the universe “just is,” this argument will be unconvincing. Any argument for the reality of God that is based on causation will also be rejected by the person who is uncertain about all causality and deeply skeptical about the necessity of any kind of metaphysical causation, or even by someone convinced of the universality of causality but who limits the concept of causality strictly to this world of sense experience and thus concludes that God, 24. See William H. McCrea, “Relativity Theory and the Creation of Matter,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 206 (1951): 562–75. 25. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (London: Trinity Press, 1977), 154. 26. Miller, God and Reason, 60.

177

178

Fundamental Theology

conceived as transcending space and time, cannot be the cause of anything (a point that Kant argued). Aquinas’s fifth way, the argument from design (or order and purpose), which is also called the teleological argument (Greek: telos = “end,” “goal,” or “purpose”), has also received significant criticism. For example, David Hume, through the voice of his character Philo, argued that one cannot infer a cosmic Designer from the apparently designed character of the universe.27 For Hume and others influenced by his thought (including Kant), all human analogies between the universe as a whole and some human product are weak and unverifiable. The nature of God remains unknowable, and thus any analogy that compares the mind of human beings with the mind of God is flawed. Material objects could themselves be possessed of their own faculty of order and purpose; there is no need to posit a cosmic Designer for such apparent order, since the order could have come about in purely naturalistic ways. Moreover, despite the appearance of some apparent order in nature, there is also much imperfection and chaos in nature that one could conclude that humans live in a blindly indifferent universe that is governed, if at all, by “blind chance” and destructive, amoral forces. Darwinian evolutionary theory further underscores the philosophical position of Hume that what seems like “order” in nature can be completely explained through naturalistic causes, for example, that the human ear evolved because hearing was an advantage for survival, not because of any intention or design.28 One cannot rationally infer a perfect and infinite Creator from an imperfect and finite universe. Even if this fifth way, the argument from design, were convincing, there are aspects of our world that do not reflect the perfection, infinity, and unity of God. Given the nature of the universe, one could just as easily conclude from the evidence that the cause of the universe is imperfect, not all-powerful, and finite, and that it may involve more than one cause. In the next chapter we will return to atheistic objections to the various arguments for the reality of God. Despite the criticisms by Hume and Kant and later thinkers, other modern thinkers have continued to defend rational approaches to God on the basis of inductive reasoning about natural phenomena. Frederick Tennant (1866–1957), for 27. David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), ed. and with an introduction by Kemp Smith (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977). Kemp Smith’s judgment that Philo reflects the skeptical views of Hume is persuasive. “Philo, from start to finish represents Hume; Cleanthes can be regarded as Hume’s mouthpiece only in those passages in which he is explicitly agreeing with Philo or … while refuting Demea, he is also being used to prepare the way for one or other of Philo’s independent conclusions” (Kemp Smith, “Introduction,” in Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion [1779], ed. and with an introduction by Kemp Smith [Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977], 59). 28. See Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994).

Natural and Philosophical Theology

example, took seriously the above philosophical criticisms and acknowledged the basic facts explained by Darwinian evolution, while also arguing that nature as a whole is intelligible and open to a purposive, meaningful explanation. Not only does nature as a whole give rise to an overwhelming sense of beauty, providing a forcible suggestion that it is the outcome of intelligent design, it has also led to the evolution of human beings, who are moral and spiritual beings. For Tennant, evidence for divine design is not to be found “in the gaps between the explanatory achievements of natural science, which are apt to get scientifically closed up,” but in reference to the whole of nature and its interwoven and dovetailing parts.29 Charles Darwin (1809–82) himself articulated a similar position. He could not think of “the world as we see it” as “the result of chance,” but neither could he “look at each separate thing as the result of design.”30 [Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of a man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.31

Many have further noted that the Darwinian explanation for the evolution of species, accurate as it goes, does not sufficiently account for the regularity of the actual laws of nature, for example, of chemistry and physics, upon which the laws of evolution are based, nor does it address the obvious question as to why these particular, regular, orderly laws are actually there. It is these regularities that, very narrowly, allow for the emergence of life and the evolutionary potential of species in the first place. With only slight changes in the laws of chemistry, for instance, life of any kind—including human life—would be impossible. More recent thinkers highlight these and similar issues in support of a modified version of the teleological argument.32 Following the basic rational procedures used by scientists, historians, and police detectives, the Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne (b. 1934), perhaps the most well-known supporter of rational theism today, argues that the reality of God (as generally affirmed in the three great Western religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is the best and simplest explanation for

29. Frederick R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928– 30), 2.104. 30. Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 2 vols, ed. Francis Darwin (London: Murray, 1888), 2.353. 31. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882, ed. Nora Barlow (London: Collins, 1958), 92–3. 32. For a very helpful overview and analysis of recent thinking regarding the teleological argument, see Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009), 202–81.

179

180

Fundamental Theology

everything we observe in the universe. It is, he says, “the ultimate brute fact that explains everything else.”33 [God] explains the fact that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains conscious animals and humans with very complex intricately organized bodies, that we have abundant opportunities for developing ourselves and the world, as well as the more particular data that humans report miracles and have religious experiences. Insofar as scientific causes and laws explain some of these things (and in part they do), these very causes and laws need explaining, and God’s action explains them. The very same criteria which scientists use to reach their own theories lead us to move beyond those theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence.34

Swinburne therefore concludes: “The very success of science in showing us how deeply orderly the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause of that order.”35 The growing amount of scientific evidence for an underlying “order” in nature eventually led “the world’s most notorious atheist,” the British philosopher Antony Flew (1923–2010), to change his mind about the reality of God.36 An atheist for more than six decades, Flew eventually rejected that philosophical position and publicly acknowledged that the evidence in the universe, especially the fine-tuning evident in the laws of nature and the complex arrangements in DNA that are needed to produce life, had led him to accept the existence of an infinite, super-intelligent Creator: I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.37 33. See Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) and Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). 34. Richard Swinburne, Is There a God? 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 2. 35. Swinburne, Is There a God?, 62. 36. See Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007). While Varghese wrote much of this book, Flew himself confirmed that it reflected his basic position. Already in the late 1990s Flew was moving toward theism, long before his thinking became affected by dementia near the end of his life. 37. Flew and Varghese, There Is a God, 88–9. It is important to underscore that Flew became a theist, not a Christian theist.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

To restate Flew’s considerations in the form of questions: How did the laws of nature come to be? How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife? How did the physical universe come into existence? In each case, Flew thought the evidence and rational analysis of that evidence point overwhelmingly in the direction of an omnipotent divine Intelligence. The more we know about the chemical basis for life and the intricacy of the genetic code, coupled with what we know about the laws of physics and chemistry, the more unbelievable is the standard materialist, mechanistic account of the origins of life and the emergence of mind/spirit as purely chemical accidents.38 (We will return to the issue of “fine-tuning” in the cosmos in Chapter 15.) Several scientists have also raised doubts about the standard materialist, atheist account of nature and have endeavored to keep open the question of God’s relationship to the natural world. These scholars generally agree with Darwin’s rejection of “blind chance” and are compelled by natural evidence to conclude there is a First Cause (“God”) to all that is. They therefore hold that the idea of God is entirely compatible with what we know to be true in the sciences.39 Here the approach is not to try to prove the existence of God on the basis of scientific observations about nature, but to show that theism resonates with what is observed in nature by rational human beings.40 “Where an earlier generation might have thought it could ‘prove’ the existence of God 38. Even the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel acknowledges that Richard Dawkins’s materialist account for the origin of life is unbelievable. See Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). Nagel’s skepticism about materialist, “blind chance” accounts of the origin of life “is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life” (ibid., 7). That some scientists estimate the fraction of stuff in the visible universe to be in living form as approximately 0.000000000000001 percent (one millionth of one billionth of 1 percent) does not necessarily mean that “life would seem to have been only an afterthought” of the divine creator, as Alan Lightman and others would interpret it. That statistic could be viewed the other way: look how astonishingly rare—and thus precious—life truly is in the universe! See Alan Lightman, “Our Place in the Universe,” Harper’s (December 2012): 38. 39. The list of such scientists is long, but see especially Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Touchstone, 1993); John Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996); John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998); Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006); and Owen Gingerich, God’s Universe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006). These books make clear that the notion of a permanent state of warfare between science and religion is unsupportable. We will return to this topic in Chapter 15. 40. This approach to the topic of natural theology is also taken by a scientifically informed atheist who became a Christian believer in God, namely, Alister E. McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008). See also Alister E. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). See also O’Collins, Rethinking Fundamental Theology, 32.

181

182

Fundamental Theology

by reflection on nature, this approach to natural theology holds that nature reinforces an existing belief in God through the resonance between observation and theory.”41 Another figure who seeks to make rational arguments in favor of theism is the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932). He argues that there are “warrants” for Christian theism, that is, there is a sufficient quantity of argued reasons for God’s reality to count as “knowledge” and not as “mere belief.”42 Taking his main cues from Aquinas and Calvin, he begins by noting that there is a sort of natural yet confused knowledge of God that God has implanted in all (or nearly all) human beings, which Calvin called “a sense of divinity” that is “natural, widespread, and not easy to forget, ignore, or destroy.”43 Human beings have a basic capacity for this sense of divinity, which must, however, develop and mature over time if it is to bear fruit. It is often triggered or occasioned and deepened by natural grandeur and beauty that reveal the glory of God. While this sense has been adversely affected by sin and its consequences, it is “partly healed and restored to proper function by faith and the concomitant work of the Holy Spirit in one’s heart.”44 This sense of divinity is ultimately produced, Plantinga contends, by natural cognitive processes that aim at giving us true beliefs about God. God who has created us would want us to know our Creator, so God has given us the faculties by which to do so. Thus, belief in God is “a basic belief ” that requires no argument: And here we see the ontological or metaphysical or ultimately religious roots of the question as to the rationality or warrant or lack thereof for belief in God. What you properly take to be rational, at least in the sense of warranted, depends on what sort of metaphysical and religious stance you adopt. It depends on what kind of beings you think human beings are, what sorts of beliefs you think their noetic faculties will produce when they are functioning properly, and which of their faculties or cognitive mechanisms are aimed at the truth. Your view as to what sort of creature a human being is will determine or at any rate heavily influence your views as to whether theistic belief is warranted or not warranted, rational or irrational for human beings. And so the dispute as to whether theistic belief is rational (warranted) … is at bottom not merely an epistemological dispute, but an ontological and theological dispute.45

Just as Plantinga begins his reflections on the reality of God from the presupposition of the truth of Christian faith and its assumptions about reality and human beings, so he asserts that philosophical rejections of rational theism presuppose that theism 41. McGrath, The Open Secret, 18. 42. See especially Alvin Plantinga, Warrant: The Current Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); and Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 43. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 171–3. 44. Ibid., 186. 45. Ibid., 190.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

is false. Those who argue in favor of atheism presuppose that for which they are arguing, namely, the falsity of theism. Yet, if those criticisms really depend upon the assumption of atheism and do not provide a rational critique that is independent of that atheism itself, then they should not have any force for anyone who does not share those presuppositions of atheism.46 Such a view may also help to explain why Plantinga’s own philosophical position on God or the reality of evil has not been persuasive to atheistic philosophers of religion.47 In addition, we should examine another argument for the reality of God that is based on observations about human experience. Unlike Kant, who based his moral argument on an a priori concept of justice and moral law, some modern thinkers, such as C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) and Francis Collins (b. 1950), have based their moral argument on a posteriori observations about human behavior and the sense of right and wrong. Lewis’s argument presupposes that there are objective truths and principles regarding what is right and wrong by which all people inherently live. On the basis of this presupposition, he and others have argued that God is the best explanation for this human moral awareness. While Lewis acknowledged that the content of this awareness is likely learned differently from one family to another, from one culture to another, and that right conduct is not naturally or easily known, what is clear is that all humans tend to seek what is “good” and “right” and to avoid what is “bad” and “wrong,” however they understand it. While the specifics of those moral principles may differ across cultures (Lewis thought the differences were often exaggerated), and one could debate about the relative goodness or moral inferiority of specific cultural norms, what cannot be denied is that individuals and societies have rules, laws, moral norms, and standards of conduct. How else could an organized society function? Is it not better to think about what makes for a good society than to ignore that thought altogether? But as soon as one begins to talk about “the good” of an individual or of a society, some kind of norm or standard is in play by which one makes judgments about what is good or bad. Lewis calls this norm “the Law about Right and Wrong” or “the Law of Human Nature.”48 In his view, “Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that 46. Ibid., 198. 47. With respect to the problem of evil, Plantinga has defended the possibility that an all-powerful God could not create a world in which human beings never choose evil. He also developed the view that an all-good God will desire to create a world that contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures (who are able to choose between good and evil). 48. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. edn (New York: Macmillan, 1952). He also called this law “the Law of Decent Behavior.” For his criticism of moral relativism and subjectivism, see The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1947). Francis Collins indicates that he became a Christian believer after acknowledging the forcefulness of Lewis’s arguments about the universal moral law, reflections that are clearly partially dependent upon Kant’s basic position. See Collins, The Language of God, 18–31.

183

184

Fundamental Theology

they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.”49 Moreover, while all humans have a sense of right and wrong, they do not in fact always do what is right. They know the law of human nature to which they should adhere, but they break it all the time. This sense of ought is basic to Lewis’s argument. Whence this feeling of moral obligation? Why do humans feel this sense of moral obligation? Why this sense of an obligation to obey a moral law that they did not originate but nonetheless feel they ought to obey? One commentator observes: “From this point it is a short step for Lewis to suggest that the most adequate account for the source of this moral law is something like a mind that stands behind the universe and has implanted within human beings the ability to recognize and feel bound by a higher standard of behavior.”50 The voice of conscience is the voice of God. It is important to note that Lewis was critical of those thinkers who try to derive moral obligation (what ought to be done) purely from nature (what is the case) and the subjective emotional states of human beings. If morality is purely a matter of subjective taste and human emotion, could one ever be wrong about one’s moral decisions, or ever be in a position to criticize the actions of others as immoral? Could one ever argue for the truth of one’s ethical views? In Lewis’s view, the sense of a moral law, and the idea of conscience that accompanies it, is necessarily grounded outside of the subjective self.51 Lewis’s moral argument is not without its critics. Some, for example, have argued that there can be human morality without the need for postulating God as its cause. Who is to say that what one knows of God and of morals is not merely the result of hearsay or irrational indoctrination from others, including especially one’s parents and family? Or maybe there are many gods (polytheism) that have given 49. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 21. 50. David Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, 3rd edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992), 92. 51. It is worth pointing out that current political discussions in the United States indicate that many people, even avowed atheists, firmly believe in moral absolutes that they think are universally binding on everyone else. One wonders why guilt and moral judgmentalism have not receded in secular, pluralistic societies, given the presence of strong arguments for moral relativism in those societies. What do the categories of guilt or innocence mean if they represent nothing more than personal or social preferences? “In short, in an era of practical atheism we are left without any basis for the feeling of moral obligation, and yet our public discussion proceeds on the assumption that certain moral principles are binding for all” (Neal F. Fisher, “Groundless Absolutes?,” Christian Century [February 28, 2018], 33). Fisher highlights three advantages that religiously grounded moral commitments have in an era of practical atheism: (1) moral concerns are grounded in the conviction that humans are creatures of God who are created for certain moral ends; (2) moral concerns are supported by the conviction that great moral causes will ultimately prevail over evil and injustice; and (3) the grounding of moral imperatives in the purposes for which God created human beings “helps to define the goal and the methods employed to reach it” (Fisher, “Groundless Absolutes?,” 35). Cf. Neal F. Fisher, Introduction to Christian Faith: A Deeper Way of Seeing (Cork: Bookbaby, 2018).

Natural and Philosophical Theology

rise to many different positions on what is “right” and “wrong.” Many people reject the idea of an objective moral law and insist that the sense of moral responsibility, which they believe is always relative, has its sole origin in nature, involves completely subjective human feelings and emotions, and is not the result of some divine Mind acting to create moral consciousness within each human being. The sense of moral responsibility could simply be completely a product of human culture. Finally, we should also briefly mention the argument from beauty, which is basically Aquinas’s fourth way to God.52 In the face of beauty we can experience deep wonder, awe, humility, gratitude, even praise. How are we to account for this human response to beauty? Similar to the argument from design, the argument from beauty moves from evidence of beauty toward the ultimate source and standard of beauty, namely, God. For example, one can point to the beauty of astronomical formations, such as nebulae, or to classic human works of excellent art, such as Michelangelo’s visual art or Bach’s music. Many people will agree that these examples are instances of objective beauty that are found in both creation and human culture. The next step is to appeal to God, the cosmic Artist, as the best explanation for the existence of beauty. The Christian understanding of God, grounded in the incarnation of the divine Word in Jesus, adds a further dimension to the argument, since Jesus is understood to be the visibility of God in the world, the perfect image of God. The argument from beauty thus moves from the observance of “objective” beauty in the world toward God as the best explanation for all such beauty. (One can detect a similarity here with Lewis’s moral argument on the basis of an “objective” moral law.) Of course, the critic will be quick to state the famous one-liner, “But beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. There is no ‘objective’ beauty.” Such a critic will insist that we must reject Aquinas’s notion of a hierarchy of beauty. Moreover, in addition to beauty in nature, there is a lot of natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) and ugliness, including suffering, death, and decay. Beauty, too, might simply be the result of a purely naturalistic process of human evolution. As with defenders of Lewis’s moral argument (who argue for an objective moral law), defenders of the argument from beauty will insist that there is an objective standard of beauty, God, and that when we make value judgments about art and other domains of human experience, we are doing so in light of that objective standard. Can we not agree that the actions of Mother Theresa were more beautiful than the actions of a serial killer? Did not Jesus make statements that are more profound than the inanities one frequently hears from talk-show hosts? Certainly Bach played the organ better than I do! And how do we account for the fact that so many people (rightly, I think) are outraged when works of art are damaged or destroyed, such

52. David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Cf. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 254–66.

185

186

Fundamental Theology

as when Taliban fighters destroyed two ancient monumental Buddha statues in Afghanistan in 2001? As with the moral argument, so also with the argument from beauty: it is likely to be more persuasive to the person who is already convinced of the reality of God than to the person who is unsure about God. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that at least a few former atheists were convinced to give up their atheism in view of the beauty of mathematical equations or the beauty of the physical cosmos.53 Given all the ambiguities and endless debates surrounding arguments for and against the reality of God over the centuries, some thinkers have taken routes similar to the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623–62), who thought that people must either simply believe in God or not. He then “wagered” that it is a safer bet to believe in God than not to do so.54 Weighing what gains and losses would occur if one staked all one had on God’s existence, he concluded that one would gain eternal blessing if the wager turned out to be correct and, if it did not, one would lose nothing. Conversely, one could potentially receive eternal damnation if one wagered against the reality of God and in the end that bet turned out to be wrong. We can chart Pascal’s “wager” like this: God exists Wager to believe in God Temporal good and eternal blessings Wager not to believe in God Potential damnation

God does not exist Temporal good Temporal good

Figure 5.1  Pascal’s wager.

Obviously for the person who is already inclined to believe in God as revealed through the Western monotheistic religious tradition, in which the possibility of divine damnation by almighty God is real, this line of thinking could be persuasive. But for the person who is not already predisposed to think of faith in reference to a single Almighty and just Creator, Pascal’s argument is probably unconvincing. Such a person might be led to think that God could be quite different from what Pascal thought. In any case, choosing to believe on the basis of a self-interested, calculating “bet” seems crass even to many religious believers. For many religious people, what counts is not so much a rational basis for their belief in God, but the practical goods that result from that belief. In their view the life that comes from theistic faith is fuller, happier, and healthier than the life they perceive the nonbeliever to have. In the face of suffering and death, they will insist that the promise of their faith helps them to live better. They draw strength from God’s eternal love, and God’s forgiveness covers their sins and guilt and failures. Indeed, God gives them divine resources for grounding their own loving and forgiving of others. Many 53. Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 263. 54. For his “wager,” see Pascal, Pensées, 200–5.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

Christians will conclude that their faith gives them meaning, purpose, and a more hopeful framework in which to address life’s challenges, perplexities, and setbacks, even as it deepens their sense of joy and gratitude for the blessings they experience in this world.55 It gives them a personal, addressable, loving, graceful, transcendent referent for their wonder at the surprising beauty, love, and sublimity in the world, as well as a basis for their ethical responsibilities. This “will to believe” in God makes God the “center of gravity” for all their attempts “to solve the riddle of life.”56 These practical outcomes are often the main reasons people give for holding the faith that they do. While such faith is indeed a risk—it would not be faith otherwise—they think it is a risk worth taking, given the One in whom they trust and the potential benefits that result from that faith. They point to the healing and consolation that they believe come from God, the source of every blessing. Like Kierkegaard and other theologians, these believers stress that God can be grasped only by faith, that God’s immediacy is only given in this way, which then alters one’s entire existence, way of thinking, course of action, and view of the world. While no human argument can prove the reality of God beyond the shadow of a doubt—or disprove that reality (as we will indicate in the next chapter)—philosophical arguments about God and natural theology assist in highlighting the abiding nature of the idea of God in human self-understanding and the ways in which many human beings have sought to make rational sense of this idea, even if those ways are not finally persuasive to committed nontheistic or atheistic thinkers. For many, though not all, committed theists, the arguments in support of theism serve to point toward the mystery of God that transcends human beings and their world. Such arguments thus help to keep open the question of that transcendent, infinite reality. They can assist in helping people to think more carefully about the concept of God and the contingent, finite realities of this world that lead some people to be persuaded that the reality of God they trust is indeed real. In the Book of Job, the horribly suffering protagonist proclaims: “These are indeed but the outskirts of [God’s] ways; and how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?” (Job 26.14). This verse captures nicely the tension between “the whisper” that God gives through the general, natural knowledge of God, received either a priori or a posteriori, and “the thunder” of God’s power that remains hidden and ultimately incomprehensible to finite, sinful human beings.

55. As an example of this line of thinking, see Ann Voskamp, One Thousand Gifts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). 56. William James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), 116. James (1842–1910), who is often called the “father of psychology” in the United States, delivered his lecture on “The Will to Believe” in 1896.

187

188

Fundamental Theology

Questions for review and discussion 1. What is the goal of philosophical theology in Christian theology? How did philosophical theology help Augustine? Do you agree with Aquinas that theology cannot proceed without first establishing that God is real? 2. What are the main elements in Anselm’s “ontological” argument for the reality of God? Do you agree with him and other supporters of the ontological argument that “existence” is implied in the notion of “God,” namely, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived?” Why or why not? 3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Kant’s “moral argument?” Who are the two other individuals mentioned in the chapter who make a similar argument based on the human sense of a moral order? 4. Be familiar with Aquinas’s “five ways” to the reality of God. Which “way” do you think has the most merit? Why? Which one is least persuasive? Why? 5. Swinburne thinks the very “success of science in showing us how deeply orderly the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause of that order.” Do you agree? Why or why not? 6. What led Flew to change his mind about theism? Does his change of mind itself lend any weight to the probability that God exists? Why or why not? 7. Why do you believe or not believe in the reality of God? Of all the arguments presented in the chapter regarding the reality of God, which one do you think is most convincing? What additional physical evidence or philosophical argumentation would you put forth in favor of the reality of God? Which evidence or philosophical argumentation is most convincing in favor of God’s nonexistence? 8. What “risks” are involved in any religious faith? How does Pascal’s “wager” relate to “the risk” of faith? What is your assessment of Pascal’s “wager?” Is “faith” best understood as a “wager?” Why or why not? 9. What role do “presuppositions” play in arguments for and against the reality of God?

Suggestions for further reading Brief introductions to the philosophy of religion Christian Link, “Natural Theology,” RPP, 9.55–7. Charles Taliaferro, “Philosophy of Religion,” BCSR, 93–112.

Natural and Philosophical Theology

Christian arguments for the reality of God In addition to the items cited at the end of Chapter 4, see also the following: Godehard Brüntrup and Ronald K. Tacelli, eds., The Rationality of Theism (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1999). [An important collection of essays from an international conference on theism.] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006). [This book offers a powerful confession of faith by one of the United States’ most well-known public scientists. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and served as the director of the National Institutes of Health.] William Lane Craig, Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002). [This work provides a broad selection of readings regarding the philosophy of religion, including arguments for and against the reality of God. Craig is a leading Christian philosopher of religion.] Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007). [Flew was one of the most important philosophers of atheism in the twentieth century. Near the end of his life he adopted a position of non-Christian theism. This book explains his shift in thinking.] Nancey Murphy, A Philosophy of the Christian Religion (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 2018). [Murphy is among the most important evangelical Protestant theologians writing today. Her work in philosophical theology provides the beginning student with a comprehensive introduction to fundamental questions about God. She then proceeds to answer those questions in a way that is accessible and persuasive.] Alvin Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990). [This is one of many books by Plantinga that address arguments for and against belief in God. Plantinga has been a leading American philosopher of religion over the past half century who is convinced that theism is rationally justified.] Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). [The sixth chapter in Plantinga’s book provides a good summary of the “warranted” beliefs for theism that Plantinga thinks are significant.] Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). [Updated edition of Swinburne’s analytical investigation into what it means to say that there is a God and whether such a statement is coherent. Swinburne argues that most traditional claims about God are coherent (i.e., they do not involve contradictions).] Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). [Updated edition of Swinburne’s most important book. Many consider it to be the strongest case for the probability of God’s reality, based on analysis of the nature of the universe, the finely tuned laws of nature, human consciousness, and the human sense of a moral order.]

189

190

Fundamental Theology

Keith Ward, God and the Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). [This professor of Christian theology at Oxford University provides an engaging historical and theological analysis of several key thinkers who have thought about the existence of God. Ward stresses that Western philosophy has tended to support a spiritual, theistic understanding of reality over against recent efforts to put forth atheism and materialism as more defensible.] Edward Wierenga, The Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016). [This excellent short introduction to the philosophy of religion is a great place to further one’s study of the principal arguments for and against the reality of God, the issue of miracles, the question of whether religious faith can be rational, and other related topics.]

Online resources for the study of the philosophy of religion Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://iep.utm.edu/relig​ion/) [Provides peerreviewed scholarly entries about religious language and belief, concepts of God, arguments for and against the reality of God, the problem of evil, and other topics in the philosophy of religion.] Philosophy of Religion (https://philo​soph​yofr​elig​ion.org/) [This website analyzes books, ideas, thinkers, societies, conferences, and other websites dedicated to this academic subject.] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanf​ord.edu/) [An excellent online reference work for the study of philosophy.]

6 Atheisms This chapter explores some of the ways in which the concept of God has been criticized. Special attention is given to the problem of evil and the issue of theodicy. In addition to examining philosophical arguments against the reality of God, the chapter identifies some of the principal criticisms that have been leveled against Christianity as a religion. The chapter then summarizes some responses that Christians have made to these various criticisms. It concludes by identifying why the notion of God continues to be held by large numbers of people today.

As noted in the introductory chapter, the term God raises many questions. To what are Christians referring when they speak of “God?” What are atheists rejecting when they confidently assert they do not believe in God? To speak of God is not without its problems, even among those who use the term in the singular (“one God”). What do monotheists mean when they use this word? Given the plethora of names for the one God within the monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and the accompanying understandings that are attached to those names, are there not numerous contrasting conceptions of God? Is God somehow personal and thus addressable in prayer or in other human ways, as traditional Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe? Or is God an impersonal entity, as Baruch Spinoza (1632–77) and others have thought? Or is God merely an abstract principle or relationship, the Ultimate Principle or the Primordial Unity? Or does God best fit the notion of “the Supreme Being?” If so, what does that expression mean? Is God distinct from the universe, the Ultimate that is not dependent on anything else for its existence and upon which all other things so depend? Or is God in some way identical to nature or reality (as in forms of pantheism, where “all” is understood to be “God”)? Both Aquinas and Spinoza used the expression “the Supreme Being,” yet each understood this notion differently. While Aquinas clearly differentiated God from everything else, Spinoza developed a kind of panentheism, since his utterly impersonal divinity subsists in all nature—but is not itself identical with the material world. What do people mean by the term God? Does it signify “that than which nothing greater can be thought,” as Anselm and Aquinas thought?1 Or is God “the one who

1. Anselm, Proslogium, 2, in St. Anselm: Basic Writings, 54; Aquinas, ST, I.2.1.

192

Fundamental Theology

truly is,” as Augustine confessed on the basis of his interpretation of Exodus 3.14?2 What about Aristotle’s views on “the unmoved Mover,” or Hegel’s reflections on God as the “world-spirit?”3 Is God best understood in the categories of so-called classical philosophical theism, where God is said to be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), immutable (changeless), omnipresent (present everywhere), eternal (timeless), and unconditioned? Or is God better understood in the categories of process theology, where God or the Ultimate Reality is not omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, or timeless, but rather is dynamic, changing, ever responding to created beings and their actions, standing in a reciprocal relation to the world of constant change, and thus is totally conditioned by that world itself?4 Or maybe God just does not exist in any sense whatsoever. If God is understood by Christians to be transcendent to all that is real, how does one know that God is in fact truly real and not an illusion? Could it be that God does not really “exist” in any sense of the term? Some Christian theologians, such as Tillich, insist that God does not exist, since “existence” implies that God is a “thing” that exists as an object alongside other objects. For these theologians, God is beyond existence or finite being and essence.5 They prefer to say that God is “real” or that God is “the really real” who transcends finite reality. In this way, they are furthering a long line of Christian theological reflection that must “negate” any human concept of the divine, including the concepts of “being” or “existence,” when used in relation to God. But even then others might still ask, “If God is said to be ‘beyond existence’ and even ‘beyond being,’ is God in any sense ‘real’?” Before proceeding to examine the nature of special divine revelation and the nature of faith as the appropriate response to that revelation, we need to give further attention to the reasons various thinkers give for rejecting God or denying God’s reality. What do atheists mean by the term God?6 What are they rejecting when they tell pollsters and others that they do not believe in God? 2. Augustine, The City of God, VIII.11 (WSA, I/6.256). 3. Cf. Hegel, The Philosophy of Religion, 3.275–94. 4. For a helpful analysis of process theology, see Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, 2.309–39. Among the most important American proponents of this type of theology are Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), Schubert Ogden (1928–2019), and John B. Cobb (b. 1925). The metaphysics of such thinkers—shaped by ideas from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 535 BC–c. 475 BC), the German idealists (Hegel; Friedrich Schelling [1775–1854]), the English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), and modern evolutionary biology—stress that the reality of God is constituted by development, process, and change. 5. See Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.205. The verb exist (Latin: “ex” + “sistere”) literally means “to stand out” or “to appear” in a place (cf. OED, 548). 6. The term atheist is clearly open to misunderstanding, also by people who are asked if they are “atheists.” Many people who think they are atheists are more likely agnostics (i.e., people who are unsure about whether or not God is truly real). For our purposes, an “atheist” is someone who is quite convinced that God is not real. Cf. William L. Rowe, “Atheism,” REP, 62–3.

Atheisms

Critiques of God and religion Just as there are many types of theism, so also there are many varieties of atheism. The denial of God (or of religion) is not restricted to one form of thought. Already in the fifth century BC, certain skeptical individuals leveled criticism against the traditional gods in the ancient cultures of India, China, and Greece. Around this same time, some nontheistic religions emerged as well (such as Buddhism and Confucianism). While some people explicitly deny the reality of God, others simply conclude that, even if God is real, nothing meaningful can be said about such a deity. Still others will insist that only the sciences can uncover accurate knowledge of what is real. Ironically, modern atheism was itself propelled by the arguments of seventeenthcentury French Roman Catholic theologians who appealed to philosophical and scientific arguments, and not primarily to biblical revelation, to defend their belief in God. When these arguments were themselves attacked by later thinkers and found seriously wanting, many in France and elsewhere concluded that belief in God is entirely irrational and that atheism is the more defensible, rational position.7 Although he remained a faithful Catholic Christian throughout his life, the philosopher René Descartes, who claimed to have had a religious-mystical experience of the mathematical order of the universe, nevertheless set forth a method of inquiry that cast doubt upon all metaphysical assertions. He defended his method of radical doubt (rejecting everything that can be doubted in the least) so as to arrive at an unshakeable philosophical foundation, namely, himself as a doubter. Such a turn to the individual doubting subject, however, created a crisis in Western metaphysics when empiricists, especially David Hume, questioned the distinction between ideas of objects and the sense experience of objects that cause those ideas, thus casting doubt upon the reality of material substance altogether. As one might expect, Hume was deeply skeptical of all religious beliefs, although he never confessed to being an atheist. Despite his own uncertainty about the possibility of a divine cause or causes for the apparent order in the universe, he thought that all religions, starting with polytheism, could best be explained naturally as the result of human fears of the unknown, principally the fear of death, and the subsequent hope for life after death.8 Hume declared: “The primary religion of mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events.”9 In his view, the chief purpose of all religions is thus to offer consolation in the face of “unknown causes” relating to pleasure and pain, good and ill, suffering and death. He thought that as more and more matters that had formerly 7. Michael J. Buckley, At the Origins of Modern Atheism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). 8. David Hume, The Natural History of Religion (1757), in David Hume: Writings on Religion, ed. Antony Flew (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1992), 114–21, 135, 143. 9. Hume, The Natural History of Religion, in Writings on Religion, 168.

193

194

Fundamental Theology

been mysterious became more fully understandable through scientific explanation, religions and their superstitious beliefs would gradually disappear.10 During the so-called Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, other European philosophers and scholars also developed arguments that attacked traditional religious belief in God and that explained all religions as purely human phenomena without recourse to God or the divine. In the introductory chapter, we noted the criticism of Deists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who dismissed traditional Christianity as “priestcraft” and superstition. They sought to criticize most religious beliefs and practices in favor of profane reason and against sacred mystery. As we have already noted, Hume’s skepticism led Immanuel Kant to assert what he thought were the limits of human knowledge and to bar the door to any legitimate metaphysical knowledge. While Kant was not an atheist, he subjected the traditional “rational proofs” for God’s existence to careful, skeptical critique.11 Real knowledge is restricted to the phenomena of human sense experience. Through “pure reason” we cannot know anything that lies beyond our experience of reality in the field of appearance. Reason “stretches its wings in vain” when it attempts “to soar above the world of sense by the mere power of speculation.”12 The transcendental world lies beyond our knowing. Hence, “God” cannot be the object of our theoretical knowledge. If such an object of faith could be proven to exist, it would cease to be an object of faith. In Kant’s view, were God to be an object among other objects, God would cease to be God. Indeed, as Tillich would later agree, the concept of “existence” has meaning only in the world of phenomena. It does not truly apply to the reality of God, who cannot be just one phenomenon among others. Kant held that all of the so-called “proofs for God’s existence” assume that which they attempt to prove, namely, the transcendental concept of an absolutely necessary and unconditioned being. Kant argued that teleological arguments cannot establish the existence of a wise world-designer unless they show the soundness of cosmological arguments (the claims that there must be a primary cause of things, on which the arguments from design secretly rest), and the latter cannot establish that the Creator of the contingent universe necessarily exists unless they first demonstrate the soundness of the ontological argument.13 So Kant began with the latter. He argued 10. It is worth pointing out that recent surveys of American scientists indicate that their level of religious belief has remained generally consistent over the past century. While that level of belief is lower compared to the general US population, approximately 36 percent of US scientists today state that they believe in God. Contrary to Hume’s view, science has not replaced religion. See Elaine Howard Ecklund, Science v. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 11. See esp. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 485–531. 12. Ibid., 500. 13. For a helpful summary and analysis of Kant’s critiques of these traditional proofs, see Allen W. Wood, “Rational Theology, Moral Faith, and Religion,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kant, ed. Paul Guyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 394–416.

Atheisms

that “being” is not a real predicate, that is, it is not “a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves.”14 If one takes the concept of God with all its predicates (e.g., omnipotence, perfection, etc.) and says only, “God is,” one does not add a new predicate to the concept of God. One merely posits the concept of God as an object that stands in relation to one’s own concept. Nothing, Kant said, “can have been added to the concept, which expresses merely what is possible, by my thinking its object (through the expression ‘it is’) as given absolutely. Otherwise stated, the real contains no more than the merely possible.”15 One cannot argue “directly from the logical possibility of concepts to the real possibility of things.”16 Whatever our concept of an object may contain, including our concept of God, we must go outside of it, if we are to ascribe existence to that object. We simply cannot do this with respect to that which transcends the phenomenal world. In Kant’s view, if the ontological argument falls, so too do the other two types of arguments. So he did not devote much attention to the other two arguments. With respect to the cosmological argument, he again pointed out that the concept of causality only applies to the phenomenal world, the world of sense experience.17 How could such a concept apply to the supreme being who is not an object, not a phenomenon? The principle that everything contingent must have a cause is true only for the world of sense experience. In Kant’s view, outside of the phenomenal world, causation is meaningless. While he did admit that we can certainly imagine or postulate the existence of an all-sufficient being, as the cause of all possible effects in the phenomenal world, such a positing is far from proving that God necessarily exists. Beyond the phenomenal world, after all, there might be an infinite series of causes, about which we can know nothing. With respect to the teleological argument (which Kant called the physicotheological proof), the most that he would accept as probable was an architect of the world, “who is always very much hampered by the adaptability of the material in which he works, not a creator of the world to whose idea everything is subject.”18 The analogy between art and what we observe in the universe is by no means adequate to the lofty purpose of proving an all-sufficient primordial being on the basis of the contingent constitution of the universe (and the teleological arrangements found within it). “To prove the contingency of matter itself, we should have to resort to a transcendental argument, and this is precisely what we have here set out

14. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 504. 15. Ibid., 505. 16. Ibid., 503. 17. Ibid., 511. 18. Ibid., 522 (emphasis in original).

195

196

Fundamental Theology

to avoid,” Kant asserted.19 He thus famously concluded, “I had to deny knowledge [i.e., philosophical proofs for God] in order to make room for faith” (moral faith’s postulates of freedom, immortality, and God, which for Kant are the regulative principles of “practical reason”).20 Hence Kant developed his moral argument for God, as we noted earlier. The nineteenth-century philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, who was already mentioned in the introductory chapter, had been raised as a Lutheran Christian, and he even briefly studied theology at Heidelberg University. But after becoming disillusioned with the weak state of theology at that time (and with the attempt of his teacher Hegel to synthesize Christian faith and human reason), he underwent a conversion to atheism. He spent the rest of his life attacking the idea of God. Rejecting theology in favor of an utterly materialistic philosophy, he argued that Christian belief in God is an illusion and a “projection” of human wishes and ideals.21 Feuerbach declared: “Religion is the dream of the human mind.”22 God is, in this view, a figment of human imagination, and rational people need to be freed from such a concept. Human beings alone are the only real subjects in the world, and there is no God. Humans have invented the concept of God through their own self-consciousness, which allows them to represent their essence to themselves by transferring their own essential qualities onto a “divine” plane. God is really the essence of humankind or, as Feuerbach also stated, humankind is really “the essence of Christianity.”23 In other words, what humans mean by God is identical to “the essence” of human beings themselves, which they project onto the realm of their imagination. The content of everything meant and discussed as God is truly reducible to the content of human beings themselves. While Christianity teaches that God is infinite, for instance, Feuerbach taught that the quality of infinity is in fact only a property of the human species. We have shown that the substance and object of religion is altogether human; we have shown that divine wisdom is human wisdom; that the secret of theology is anthropology; that the absolute mind is the so-called finite subjective mind. But religion is not conscious that its elements are human; on the contrary, it places itself in opposition to the human, or at least it does not admit that its elements are human. The necessary turning-point of 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid., 29 (emphasis in original). 21. Even if most modern Americans are unfamiliar with Feuerbach’s philosophy, many of them have likely heard a version of his famous aphorism that reflects his materialism: “Man is what he eats.” 22. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (1841), trans. George Eliot (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), xxxix. 23. Feuerbach later reduced the concept of God to the essence of nature and, finally, to the essence of desire. For an excellent analysis of Feuerbach’s philosophy, see Marcel Neusch, The Sources of Modern Atheism, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (New York: Paulist, 1982), 31–56.

Atheisms

history is therefore the open confession, that the consciousness of God is nothing else than the consciousness of the human species.24

Feuerbach thus sought to destroy religious “illusion” so as to open people’s eyes to their own simple reality. When humans are liberated from their illusions, they truly become human beings, who are then able to devote themselves entirely and solely to human ends, to humanism. The recurring theme in Feuerbach’s philosophy can be summarized by using a line from another of his books: “The task of the modern era was the realization and humanization of God—the transformation and dissolution of theology into anthropology.”25 Feuerbach has rightly been called “the father of modern atheism,” for he contributed significantly to the rise of secularism in the West, and he had a direct influence on other important European thinkers who criticized Christianity and theism. David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74), whom we will encounter again in relation to the historical knowledge about Jesus, raised radical “Feuerbachian” questions about the origins of Christianity and the “mythical” elements in the NT Gospels.26 His work in biblical studies, as well as that of other nineteenth-century historical-critical scholars, cast serious doubt on the truth and authority of the Bible as traditionally understood. Influenced significantly by Hegel, Strauss advocated for the rejection of all supernaturalism and the translation of whatever might be useful in Christian doctrine into Hegelian philosophy. Another post-Hegelian, Karl Marx, agreed with Feuerbach that Christian belief is an illusion, but he also stressed, in a way that Feuerbach did not, that all religions have functioned historically as an “opiate” to help human beings put up with their wretched social conditions and their exploitation by social elites (including the clergy). In what became a famous statement of his position, Marx proclaimed: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.”27 Following Feuerbach, Marx held that humans invented gods to deal with the unjust world they experience. They live in an unjust social world that requires illusions, but such illusions help to keep them unfree. (Indeed, Marx concluded that the kind of religion that was imposed on the masses was designed to provide false consolation amid their suffering. It was always an ideological tool of the ruling class, first on the part of a slave-owning aristocracy and then on the part of the industrial bourgeoisie.) Marx thus rejected the idea of God in favor of a humanistic ideal. Humans must be free of the illusion of God (and 24. Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 270. 25. Ludwig Feuerbach, Principles of the Philosophy of the Future (1843), in The Fiery Brook: Selected Writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, trans. Z. Hanfi (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), 177. 26. David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 4th edn (1840), 3 vols, trans. George Eliot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 27. Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, in Marx & Engels on Religion (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 42 (emphasis in original).

197

198

Fundamental Theology

its accompanying illusory happiness) in order for humans to become truly human and truly happy. They must give up trying to escape into an imaginary world. Instead, they should organize to promote a sociopolitical struggle against an unjust world. Real human life will only be possible when people are free of all religions, free of a self-centered life, and are living within a truly egalitarian society in which each human being lives in harmony with all the others. As we have noted, while Charles Darwin was not himself an atheist, his discovery of the natural process of selection undermined Paley’s teleological argument, as well as those of others. Subsequent developments in biology and the other natural sciences further underscore the philosophical position of Hume that apparent “order” in nature can be completely explained through naturalistic causes. By the late nineteenth century some biologists had come to see natural life as a quite disorderly and often vicious struggle for “the survival of the fittest,” while “Social Darwinist” thinkers extended that idea of unrelenting struggle to include nation-states, ethnic groups, and cultures as well. Friedrich Nietzsche, whose complex thoughts and aphorisms on theism and Christianity do not submit to an easy summary, went far beyond Kant’s critiques by fiercely proclaiming “the death of God” and submitting Christianity to unrelenting hostile attacks.28 Nietzsche’s famous “madman” cried out that “God is dead,” that is, that belief in the God of Christianity had become unbelievable and therefore had “died.” Such a death entails the loss of any ultimate ground of meaning and of all traditional moral values. The son and grandson of Lutheran pastors, Nietzsche called for the complete eradication of God from human life and the world since he was absolutely convinced the notion of God is stifling and based on false supposition: I regard Christianity as the most fatal seductive lie that has yet existed, as the great unholy lie … I reject every compromise position with respect to it—I force a war against it. Petty people’s morality as the measure of things: this is the most disgusting degeneration culture has yet exhibited. And this kind of ideal still hanging over mankind is “God”!29

By the end of his teenage years, after having briefly studied theology as a university student, Nietzsche had repudiated his family’s Lutheran faith and piety and adopted

28. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882), in The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954), 95–6. For an excellent overview of Nietzsche’s life and thought, see Carl Heinz Ratschow, “Friedrich Nietzsche,” in Nineteenth-Century Religious Thought in the West, 3 vols, ed. Ninian Smart, John Clayton, Patrick Sherry, and Steven T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 3.37–69; cf. Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, 1.397–412. 29. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (1901), ed. Walter Kaufmann, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale (New York: Vintage, 1967), 117.

Atheisms

a belief in the supremacy of matter.30 He thought that for the human race to progress and be truly happy, it must give up all religions, especially Christianity, which was guilty for opposing the ideal of “the natural human being,” the true individual, which had been embodied by the classical Greeks.31 Christianity suppressed the natural instincts of human beings, and such un-naturalness must be criticized at every turn. People must also recognize the force of matter (materialism) as tantamount to absolute necessity, thus obviating all moral responsibility. Humans must give up all notions of other-worldly hopes and focus entirely on this-worldly practical aims. Nietzsche was particularly contemptuous toward Christian humility and piety that simply accepted all that happened as “the will of God.” He thought such an attitude was based on a dangerous illusion, which debased human beings and made them weak and “sick.” People should grow up, rid themselves of their superstitions and deceptions, be done with such childish concerns as “God” and “sin,” and face up to the fact that they live in a purely materialistic, naturalistic world (subject entirely to naturalistic explanations). Individuals should strive to impose their will on the events around them, become one with their fate, and thereby rise above the inevitable flow of world history. The mature Nietzsche would insist that people must make their own course in life, without regard for supposed “moral” standards or social conventions. For him, the purpose of education, centered on the science of the future, is to rid people of their illusions, to make way for the cultivation of the human of the future, “the genius,” “the overman,” the superior human.32 Nietzsche strongly insisted that all our experience and knowledge are entirely historical, radically transient, and thus completely relative. There are no “eternal truths.” Everything is in flux, and all is governed by absolute necessity. Crucial in Nietzsche’s thought is “the power of the will,” which fosters joy for the “superman,” the “superior” human, precisely by overcoming or rising above necessity. While every metaphysical and religious belief and moral value was the target of Nietzsche’s criticism, even scientific knowledge is entirely subject to the perspective of the individual, as filtered through the limitations of language—and no one, not even scientists, can rise above that embedded, perspectival, language-bound situation. Given the constant change of reality and of our fleeting perspectives on it, Nietzsche insisted 30. When Friedrich was five, his father and brother died within a year of each other. Friedrich grew up in a household where he was doted upon by his mother, paternal grandmother, two aunts, and his sister. The strong self-esteem that they instilled in him later developed into a kind of narcissism. The Christianity he learned as a child was deeply shaped by expressions of their feminine piety, from which he later sought emancipation. In 1889 Nietzsche went insane, and he never recovered. He was nursed first by his mother and then by his widowed sister until he died. See Ratschow, “Friedrich Nietzsche,” 42–3, 66. 31. Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 73–4. 32. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–85), II (“Upon the Blessed Isles”), in The Portable Nietzsche, 197–200.

199

200

Fundamental Theology

that life has no ultimate meaning. Indeed, he thought this is why people have invented their metaphysical illusions, namely so that they can be comforted in a cold, heartless, ever-changing world. Like Hume, Nietzsche thought that religions were born out of fear of the unknown, as people have sought to placate the irrational forces they mysteriously encountered and to impose meaning upon the arbitrary world of nature. Most people, he thought, get by in life simply by deceiving themselves with their religious fantasies, by seeing only what they want to see in the world, and by convincing themselves that life is worth living. But all such worldviews are false, futile, and meaningless. Like Marx, Nietzsche thought that all religions are narcotics that we must reject. We can no longer rely on God, who has been exposed as nothing more than the product of conjecture. We can only rely on ourselves, on our own will to create and to act, to move beyond the traditional antitheses between “truth” and “untruth,” “good” and “evil,” in order to do what is “life-enhancing” and “species-preserving.” Now that God is dead, “nothing is true, all is permitted.”33 Individuals must now decide for themselves what is good and evil, true and beautiful. By the beginning of the twentieth century many other philosophers had also rejected the idea of God altogether as a fanciful human invention. Former Lutherans were not the only ones to become modern atheists. For example, despite the fact that the twentiethcentury German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) had once studied for the Catholic priesthood, he later claimed to have completely destroyed the Western metaphysical tradition, including its theological dimension. Accepting Nietzsche’s proclamation that “God is dead,” Heidegger held that any speculative, metaphysical reflection on a supposed transcendent reality is meaningless and empty. Nevertheless, one has to recognize that Heidegger’s examination of angst (intense anxiety) in his most important work, Being and Time, is primarily religious and cannot be coherently explicated without a religious reference.34 Apparently Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the father of psychoanalysis, lived his life entirely as a secular atheist and a self-described “infidel Jew.”35 According to a friend and biographer, Freud “saw no reason for believing in the existence of any supernatural Being” and he “felt no emotional needs for such a belief.”36 Despite his atheism, Freud devoted considerable attention to religion and sought to understand its human origins. He considered all religions to be grounded solely in human imagination. He held that the idea of God is merely a subjective projection of an individual’s wishes. In order to make life bearable, humans invent gods and 33. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, IV.7 (“The Shadow”), in The Portable Nietzsche, 386. 34. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (1927), trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: HarperCollins, 1962), 234–5. 35. Sigmund Freud, “A Religious Experience,” in Sigmund Freud, Collected Papers, 5 vols, ed. James Strachey, trans. Joan Riviere and James Strachey (New York: Basic Books, 1959), 5.244. 36. Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, 3 vols (New York: Basic Books, 1957), 3.351.

Atheisms

comforting beliefs (e.g., immortality) to cope with the harshness of life. Freud thus offered a psychological explanation for the origins of all religions in infantile wish fulfillments and repressed desires (e.g., the Oedipus conflict) that can be discovered in dreams and neurotic symptoms.37 Religions arise from neuroses that point toward an underlying sense of guilt that is a source of anxiety. They are a product of the infancy of humankind, which human beings must move past in order to become mature. Even though Peter Berger (1929–2017) was not an atheist (he was a Lutheran Christian), he did argue for a kind of “methodological atheism” in the sociological study of religion. As a sociologist of religion, Berger held that all religions, including Christianity, are the result of human projections of meaning onto the universe.38 He argued that within the scholarly study of the religions, which includes attention to the history, sociology, and psychology of religion, and which tends to bracket out questions about the ultimate truth or illusion of religious beliefs and practices, all religions are interpreted as humanly constructed phenomena, and this, too, often results in a kind of implicitly atheistic position. Within the social sciences there is a long-standing tendency to reduce all theological concepts and experiences into categories of anthropology, psychology, and sociology. It is also worth noting that the most influential Protestant theologian of the twentieth century, Karl Barth, also held that all religious people are guilty of projecting ideals onto the plane of their imagination. Barth, who wrote a favorable introduction to the English edition of Feuerbach’s main book, taught that all established religions are indeed human projections and tantamount to unbelief.39 We can only summarize a few sentences from his lengthy critique of religion in his Church Dogmatics:

37. See Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, trans. W. D. Robson-Scott, rev. by James Strachey (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1964) and Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, trans. Katherine Jones (New York: Vintage, 1967). 38. Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 25–8, 42–52, 81–101. For his reflections on “methodological atheism,” see the second appendix to the book (179–88). In this appendix, however, Berger made clear that his type of theorizing should not be misinterpreted as only atheism and nothing more. To say that “religion is a human projection does not logically preclude the possibility that the projected meaning may have an ultimate status independent of man” (181). As we will see later, Berger wrote other books in which he drew attention to features in human societies that, at the very least, point in a transcendent direction and that help to keep open the question of ultimate truth. 39. Karl Barth, “An Introductory Essay,” in Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, x–xxxii. The argument that all religions are human-made is often viewed by more recent atheists as the most damaging blow of their criticism: “The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made” (Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything [New York: Twelve, 2007]), 10.

201

202

Fundamental Theology

We begin by stating that religion is unbelief. It is a concern, indeed, we must say that it is the one great concern, of godless man … [This proposition] does not affect only other men with their religion. Above all it affects ourselves also as adherents of the Christian religion. It formulates the judgment of divine revelation upon all religion … Sin is always unbelief. And unbelief is always man’s faith in himself. And this faith invariably consists in the fact that man makes the mystery of his responsibility his own mystery, instead of accepting it as the mystery of God. It is this faith which is religion. It is contradicted by the revelation attested in the New Testament, which is identical with Jesus Christ as the one who acts for us and on us. This stamps religion as unbelief. We cannot make this point without insisting expressly that it is only by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ that we can characterize religion as idolatry and self-righteousness, and in this way show it to be unbelief.40

Barth blamed Luther for beginning to shift theology away from God in himself to what God is for human beings and thus paving the way toward Feuerbach. Did not Luther himself say that the “trust and faith of the heart make both God and an idol” and that faith can even be said to be “the creator of Deity?”41 In the course of the subsequent history of Protestant theology, the focus shifted more and more to humanity as the subject of theology. Barth thus agreed with Feuerbach’s basic assessment: theology has long since become anthropology. He stressed that in our human relation to God, we are and remain idolators. We are constantly projecting our ideals onto the transcendent realm we call “God.” We can lay claim to the living God’s truth, certainty, and salvation not by virtue of our human religious activities or beliefs but only by divine grace. Barth thus used Feuerbach’s critique of religion as a warning to religious people: “Whoever is concerned with the spirit, the heart, and conscience, and the inwardness of man must be confronted with the question of whether he is really concerned with God and not with the apotheosis of man.”42 More recently, in America and Britain, a few popular writers and polemicists, including Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), Sam Harris (b. 1967), and Christopher 40. Barth, CD, II/1.299–314. 41. Luther, Large Catechism (Ten Commandments), BC, 386; Luther, Lectures on Galatians (1531/1535), LW1, 26.227. For Luther, of course, true Christian faith can only be created through the proclamation of the gospel promise about Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, which comes as a word of forgiveness and love outside of ourselves. The promising word that creates faith is external to us, in the preached word of the cross and the sacraments that are administered according to the promise of the gospel. Cf. the critique of Feuerbach by Steven D. Paulson, Luther’s Outlaw God, 3 vols (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018–21), 3.25–7, 207–43. 42. Barth, “An Introductory Essay,” xxv. Barth also agreed with Feuerbach’s strong criticism of institutional, bourgeoisie Christianity for its repeated failure to raise its prophetic voice and to side with workers in their struggle for real economic justice. Still, Barth also levels strong criticism against Feuerbach: Anyone who knew that we men are evil from head to foot and anyone who reflected that we must die, would recognize it to be the most illusory of all illusions to suppose that the essence of God is the essence

Atheisms

Hitchens (1949–2011), have also articulated arguments that defend atheism, that expose perceived intellectual weaknesses and defects in religions, and that promote scientific materialism and humanism as the best and most accurate worldview. In the view of these “new atheists,” supposedly rational “science” is pitted against supposedly irrational “religion.” Their arguments are often noticeably marked by an emotional hostility toward religions and religious beliefs, which itself betrays a kind of passionate, deep concern about religion and God, albeit a negative one. A principal target of these atheists is organized religion of any type and any sort of religious supernaturalism, which they equate with superstition. All religion is attacked on the basis of several well-known abuses and evils that have occurred in the history of the religions, especially Christianity.43 Among such Christian failures are anti-Semitism, violence against religious dissenters, Christiansupported colonialism and slavery, white Christian nationalism, financial greed, sexual abuse by religious leaders, and wrong-headed criticism of basic scientific knowledge. Too often, Christians themselves, through their immoral actions and words that conceal God, have caused people to affirm such atheistic critiques of religion. In the wake of the trenchant criticism by Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Freud, and other “masters of suspicion,” the question of God’s reality continues to be explored and debated by philosophers of religion, scientists, and theologians.44 As we have seen with Nietzsche, one position in that debate is materialism, which is sometimes also called naturalism. This is the view that reality is only comprised of material, natural

of man. He certainly would not disturb “the good Lord” by such a confusion of Him with the likes of us. (Ibid., xxviii). 43. The proponents of the so-called “new atheism” do not all make the same arguments or make them with the same precision, but in general see (in addition to Hitchens’s God Is Not Great) Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: Norton, 2004); Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006); Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking, 2006); Lewis Wolpert, Six Impossible Things before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief (New York: Norton, 2006); and Victor Stenger, The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2006). Dawkins and the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (b. 1950), have debated each other publicly about God and religious belief. One may view these debates easily on the internet. It is significant that Dawkins now admits he is not entirely sure there is no God, although he is nearly certain about this position. Cf. Alister E. McGrath, Dawkins’ God: From The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion, 2nd edn (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015); and Keith Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins (Oxford: Lion, 2008). 44. Paul Ricoeur referred to Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud as the three great “masters of suspicion,” for they have raised critical questions about the illusions, masks, projections, and hidden meanings of human consciousness. See, for example, Ricoeur’s essays, “Consciousness and the Unconscious” and “Religion, Atheism, and Faith,” in The Conflict of Interpretations, 99–120, 440–67.

203

204

Fundamental Theology

elements and that there is nothing else that is real beyond this natural, material world, just particles of matter that are constantly moving, ever becoming. According to this view, there is nothing that transcends nature, that is, there is no God. A good example of this worldview was set forth by the late American paleontologist Richard Lewontin (1929–2021). He freely acknowledged that his commitment to atheistic materialism was the principal presupposition that he brought to his scholarly work: It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.45

Some people, too, just do not want to live in a universe that has been created by God, to whom they might then have to be accountable. The American philosopher Thomas Nagel (b. 1937) says: I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear [of religion] myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.46

Among the more important books by recent atheistic philosophers of religion are those by Jordan Howard Sobel (1929–2010) and Graham Oppy (b. 1960). For example, Sobel’s massive work, Logic and Theism, provides careful, exhaustive analysis and criticism of the basic arguments for the reality of God (ontological, cosmological, and teleological) and concludes that each of these arguments is unpersuasive.47 For Sobel, the Anselmian ontological argument, premised on the notion of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” does not necessarily establish the existence of the thing that is thought nor does “existence” contribute to “greatness.” Against the cosmological ways of Aquinas, Sobel stressed that the universe could 45. Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997), 31. It is important to note and consider the “absolute” presuppositional commitment that Lewontin made prior to any investigation of what he studied, which he then projected onto the natural world (thus creating a worldview). That commitment seems to have the character of a kind of faith, albeit an atheistic one. It is one thing to employ a scholarly method that presupposes naturalism, which even theists ought to admit is useful in the study of nature, but it is quite another thing to conclude on the basis of this methodological presupposition that the natural world is the sole reality. Most theists likely insist that God’s reality transcends the natural world. 46. Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130. 47. John Howard Sobel, Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Atheisms

have had multiple “first” causes, perhaps an infinite regress of such causes, and even if the universe had just one efficient cause, there is no obvious reason why it should still exist.48 In his view, other cosmological arguments and all arguments for design fail for Humean and Darwinian reasons.49 For his part, Oppy also concludes that there are no successful arguments that could persuade nontheists to change their minds about the reality of God.50 Oppy runs through versions of the ontological argument, several cosmological arguments, and many teleological arguments and finds them all wanting for one reason or another. All versions of Anselm’s ontological argument fail to be successful in persuading nontheists to change their minds because such arguments inherently conflate the concept of God in human understanding with God’s reality. (This was Kant’s criticism as well.) Cosmological arguments are not persuasive to nontheists because the latter think they are able to offer their own nontheistic rationalizations for the evidence upon which theists build their arguments. Teleological arguments fail for the reasons Hume set forth.

The issue of theodicy Since rational consideration of evil is perhaps the strongest argument against the reality of God, we should devote closer attention to it. Many philosophers of religion, including Sobel and Oppy, argue that the reality of widespread unjust suffering and death is the most persuasive evidence against theism. Evil exists. But evil is incompatible with the existence of a perfect being. Therefore, a perfect being does not exist. Stated differently, in view of the evidence of nature and history, if God is all-powerful, he is not good, and if God is good, he is not all-powerful.51 This type of argument raises the question of “theodicy”: If there is a God, why all this suffering? Why do the innocent suffer, whose cries to heaven are met with silence and seeming indifference? Can God be justified in the face of the world’s evils? How can evil be reconciled with God’s love and omnipotence? Modern philosophers have certainly not been the only ones to raise these questions. The OT biblical character Job voiced them as well, as do many of the Psalms, one of which (Ps. 22) was quoted by the dying Jesus: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15.34). That question was not answered, at least not in that moment. Job’s friends stayed silent for a long time, while Job asked his 48. Ibid., 194–9. 49. Ibid., 277. 50. Graham Oppy, Arguing about Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), xv. 51. Cf. J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200–12.

205

206

Fundamental Theology

own questions. By story’s end, after they do present Job with a lot of superficial and demeaning “counsel” and advice, it is clear the narrator thought those friends should have kept their mouths shut. But it is difficult for faithful people not to speak up when God’s ways are assailed and called into question—even if they are not sure what to say. The seventeenth-century Lutheran theologian and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was the first to coin the term theodicy, which refers to attempts “to justify the ways of God to human beings.”52 Leibniz held that evil is only an impetus toward the good in the world. He thus taught that evil is necessarily given with the good of creation, namely, with the distinction between the Creator and creation, between God’s perfection and the imperfection of creatures. According to Leibniz, “metaphysical evil” provides the basis for the possibility of moral and physical evil. God thus used sin to let the good stand out all the more in contrast to evil. Leibniz famously argued optimistically that this is “the best of all possible worlds,” a statement that, when viewed in the terrible aftermath of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, led the French skeptic and Deist Voltaire (1694–1778) to write his satirical novella, Candide, or All for the Best.53 Other skeptical writers have offered similar satire and criticism of optimistic views of the world in the aftermath of additional natural disasters, such as the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia that killed an estimated 250,000 people. The great Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–81) addresses this central theological problem of evil through two characters in his novel The Brothers Karamazov. Two brothers, Alyosha and Ivan, represent two types of theism: one that affirms the goodness and mercy of God, and one that protests against God. Both brothers are wrestling with the reality of God in the face of senseless suffering and manifest evil. While Alyosha believes and trusts God, Ivan protests and rebels. The latter tells horrifying stories about children who are tortured and murdered, villages that are destroyed by armies, women that are raped, babies who are bayonetted or shot before their mother’s eyes. He also tells the story of a little serf boy who died a violent death when his master set his pack of hounds on him, simply because the boy 52. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil (1710), ed. Austin Farrer, trans. E. M. Huggard (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952). Cf. “theodicy,” OED, 2039. The phrase “justify the ways of God to men” comes from John Milton, Paradise Lost, bk. 1 (New York: Norton, 1993), 9. 53. Voltaire, Candide, Zadig, and Other Stories, trans. Donald M. Frame (New York: Signet classics, 2009). One of the play’s central characters, Dr. Pangloss, who is depicted as an out-of-touch-with-reality buffoon, represents the philosophical position of Leibniz, that “this is the best of all possible worlds,” and that, despite whatever thus happens in the world, “all is well.” Leibniz’s philosophical reflections are more complicated than Voltaire’s satire suggests, and they include serious reflection on the fall of humankind, our alienation from God, which has adversely affected the rest of God’s creation, matters that Voltaire did not address.

Atheisms

accidentally hurt the paw of the master’s favorite dog. Ivan asks his brother, Alyosha, who is a novice Christian monk: If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony … What kind of harmony is that in which there are hells like this? … Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering … It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.54

In a soft voice, Alyosha murmurs: “That is rebellion.” A moment later he says: You said just now, is there a being in the whole world who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? But there is a Being and He can forgive everything, all and for all, because He gave His innocent blood for all and everything. You have forgotten Him, and on Him is built the edifice, and it is to Him they cry aloud, “Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed!”55

While Ivan’s voice offers up a “protesting theism” (which approaches a kind of moralistic atheism), Alyosha’s words point to the suffering of Jesus on the cross. In view of the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis, the radical Jewish rabbi Richard L. Rubenstein Jr. (1924–2021) could no longer believe in God’s providential direction of history and God’s special relation to the Jewish people.56 Rubenstein asserted that these beliefs must be rejected “after Auschwitz” and that people must face the stark reality that they live in an absurd, blind, and indifferent universe. For Rubenstein human beings must create their own religious rituals “in a world without God.” Then, too, many Christian believers are aware of the element of doubt within their own faith, even as they are tempted by the faith of the atheist or at least that of the selfsufficient “secular humanist.” Underlying these suspicions about metaphysics and the reality of God is a corresponding lack of confidence for making sense of life and the universe in any systematic manner. Typical is the confession one finds in the preface to a well-regarded

54. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (1879–80), trans. Constance Garnett (New York: The Modern Library, 1949), 253–4. 55. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, 255. This section of the novel, “Rebellion,” is followed by Ivan’s “poem” about “The Grand Inquisitor,” a fictional Roman Catholic cleric who at the time of the Spanish Inquisition interrogates and verbally abuses Jesus. While Jesus remains silent throughout the questioning, the Grand Inquisitor defends “the principles of the devil,” which alone can lead to the unification of humankind, provide bread for the people, and control their conscience. The Christian church, “improving” on the teaching of Jesus and adopting the devil’s principles, now rules the world in the name of God. 56. Richard L. Rubenstein Jr., After Auschwitz (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966).

207

208

Fundamental Theology

three-volume history of Europe that was written shortly after the end of the First World War: Men wiser and more learned than I have discerned in history a plot, a rhythm, a predetermined pattern. These harmonies are concealed from me. I can see only one emergency following upon another as wave follows upon wave.57

More recently, artists and dramatists—such as the Czech writer and politician Vaclav Havel (1936–2011), responding to this post-Kantian situation—depict the modern self in “a state of crisis,” as having “lost his fundamental metaphysical certainty, the experience of the absolute, his relationship to eternity, the sensation of meaning—in other words, having lost the ground under his feet.”58 Lost, too, for such people in such a world, is God. In the recent period of Western intellectual life, often given the label “the postmodern,” many people have underscored this sense of the seeming pointlessness to human history, mass suffering, and the absence of any divine presence. They echo Rubenstein’s lament that there is no rhyme or reason to reality, that it lacks a plot, and that one cannot make any overarching sense of it as a whole, certainly not in relation to any notion of “God.” People are thus suspicious of what the French philosopher and psychologist Jean-François Lyotard (1924–98) has called grand, overarching “meta-narratives” that attempt to situate one’s life or family or religion or nation in the context of a larger historical narrative that has a clear plot and progressive development.59 This suspicion is especially prevalent in universities today, where scholars demonstrate how self-serving most such meta-narratives are and have been, how they tend to construct a vision of reality that favors the powerful over against the weak and the marginalized, and how there are other ways of construing history, ways that take into greater account the fragmentary, arbitrary nature of human experience. In this view “God” is often merely a construct to justify one’s own selfish desires and parochial, tribal agendas. Some people are not so sure, of course, about either the varieties of theism or the varieties of atheism. These individuals do not know for certain if God is real or not, one way or the other, and thus they appropriate for themselves the cautious term agnostic (literally, “one who does not know”), which was invented by Thomas Huxley (1825–95) in the late nineteenth century to describe a kind of middle, respectful

57. H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe, 3 vols (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1935–6), 1.vii. 58. Vaclav Havel, Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Hvizdala, trans. Paul Wilson (New York: Random House, 1990), 53. Havel was commenting on “the theater of the absurd,” which he held to be “the most significant theatrical phenomenon of the twentieth century” (ibid., 53). 59. Jean François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Benington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).

Atheisms

way between traditional (Christian) belief and committed atheism.60 Some agnostics, such as Marcelo Gleiser (b. 1959), a Brazilian-born theoretical physicist (and a recipient of the Templeton Prize), maintain that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, which requires humility and that such humility fits better with agnosticism. Since science ponders the mysteries of existence, it requires humility, not the kind of confident declarations that atheists (and some theists) make.61 Other agnostics might believe in a “Higher Power,” but they are critical of all religions as corrupt, impure, illusory ways of relating to whatever such a Being is. Individuals who hold this view might affirm that they themselves are “spiritual” but not “religious.” They might believe in some kind of deity or goddess, but steadfastly refrain from participating in any religious institution or group, even though they might in fact hold to elements of one or more religious traditions, often without even knowing that religious institutions have shaped their beliefs and spiritual practices. Of course, from a biblical perspective, all human beings are atheists in a certain basic sense, for they do not trust and love the Creator as they should. They deny the Creator, and they set up alternative gods in place of the true God. We might refer to this type of atheism as casual, functional atheism. The native propensity to sin, its impulse and corrupting force, turns humans away from God and makes them into inveterate idol-makers. More than one biblical passage indicates that the inclination of human hearts is toward evil (e.g., Gen. 6.5, 8.21; Ps. 51.5). As a result, in this biblical view, the human soul loves only itself, seeks mainly its own desires, and despises God, as numerous scriptural texts declare: “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God” (Rom. 8.7). “All are godless and evildoers” (Isa. 9.17 [trans. modified]). Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good, no, not one. (Ps. 14.1-3; cf. Rom. 3.10-12)

In a world of violence and evil actions, where criminals often get away with their crimes, where there is no accountability, no justice—it is easy to conclude that God is absent or unreal. The possibility of functional atheism dwells within every human being. How many people believe in the reality of God but live their lives as if God is not present or real?

60. Thomas Henry Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992). 61. Lee Billings, “Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says,” Scientific American (March 2019), https://www.sci​enti​fica​meri​can.com/arti​cle/athe​ism-is-incon​sist​ent-with-the-sci​enti​ fic-met​hod-prize​winn​ing-physic​ist-says/ (accessed January 6, 2023).

209

210

Fundamental Theology

Skepticism about the skeptics The criticisms that atheists and agnostics level against “God” and “religions” need to be taken seriously. Christians need to be sensitive to the gravity of the questions that atheists raise. This sensitivity is especially required with respect to the older, classic forms of atheistic critique (Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche). But are they entirely convincing? Often notions that atheists have of “God,” which they then reject, bear little resemblance to the God of the Christian gospel. The arguments of the so-called “new atheists” seem especially prone to criticism. Australian-born philosopher Mark Johnston (b. 1954), for instance, contends that none of the “new atheists” presents careful engagement with philosophical and scholarly arguments for the reality of God. The evils that have occurred within the history of religion are profoundly lamentable, but they have a limited bearing on the question of the truth about God. While Johnston’s own theological position denies the Christian’s hope in a new creation and a new heaven beyond this present world, he does expose the serious flaws in the arguments by these “undergraduate atheists,” as he calls them.62 What they attack are caricatures and straw men, as if religious superstitions and appeals to supernatural, interventionist deities fully exhaust the nature of religion and of every theological understanding of God. Missing in their polemical attacks, Johnston observes, is any awareness of the nuanced, sophisticated discussions of God by such classical, rational theists as Kant or Spinoza.63 (One thinks of the famous one-liner by Francis Bacon

62. See Mark Johnston, Saving God: Religion after Idolatry (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 37–52. 63. While Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins appeal to Spinoza, they wrongly interpret him as an atheist after their own hearts. It is clear they have not studied his writings very carefully. Spinoza, a “Godintoxicated man,” was a rational theist, who fully accepted naturalistic and rational explanations for worldly phenomena but who also believed that Jesus Christ had a mind that was in tune with the mind of God. Therefore, I do not believe that anyone has attained such a degree of perfection surpassing all others, except Christ. To him God’s ordinances leading men to salvation were revealed not by words or by visions, but directly, so that God manifested himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as he once did to Moses through an audible voice. The Voice of Christ can thus be called the Voice of God in the same way as that which Moses heard. In that sense it can also be said that the Wisdom of God—that is, wisdom that is more than human—took on human nature in Christ, and that Christ was the way of salvation” (Benedict Spinoza, “The Theological-Political Tractate,” in Spinoza: Complete Works, ed. Michael L. Morgan, trans. Samuel Shirley [Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002], 398). For further analysis of Spinoza’s complex theology on the basis of all of his writings, see Richard Mason, The God of Spinoza: A Philosophical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). While Spinoza was

Atheisms

[1561–1626]: “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”)64 More seriously, the new atheists, to a person, assume that every religion and every theology is essentially supernaturalistic, as if creationism (the belief in a literal six-day supernatural creation by God) is the only option for a Christian theological understanding of the universe, and as if the facts of Darwinian evolution fully exclude every form of theism. The new atheists do not recognize that both scientists and theologians are constantly questioning and revising their understandings of reality, including the reality of God, to accord better with what is known to be true, at least at a given time. As will be noted in Chapter 15, many well-regarded scientists in their field are practicing Christians today, who endeavor to articulate points of agreement between scientific knowledge and their Christian faith in God, just as there are several academic theologians today who seek to do the same thing. The ongoing presence of such scientists, together with their various ways of articulating the compatibility between their faith claims and the findings of the sciences, indicates that the so-called “war between religion and science” is a caricature. Scientifically informed Christians and theologically informed scientists (occasionally they are one and the same) contradict the uncritical claims of these contemporary atheists regarding “science” and “religion.” Contemporary scientists do not discount the legitimate findings of Isaac Newton because those findings happened within a worldview that became outdated after Albert Einstein. Many thoughtful religious believers today have no difficulty affirming naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena and robust theological understandings that are consistent with those explanations. What science is incapable of disproving is the source of that theological understanding and commitment that many believers find fully consonant with the very possibility of scientific investigation in the first place, namely, the seemingly rational, mathematical order of the universe. “The very idea of a refutation of religion by science is thus a misplaced generality. It would have to involve the singular scientific result that there is no authentic source of existential strength. Which subfields of science are working on that question, and with what methods?”65 Moreover, as philosopher John Bowker (b. 1935) has suggested, the observation that religions are “man-made and a human invention” does not “in itself adjudicate on the truth or otherwise of what has been invented … To invent something does not necessarily mean ‘to make up some kind of falsehood.’ It may mean to come into something that was waiting to be found.”66

not an orthodox Christian or a member of any Christian group, he himself rejected the label of atheist as an accurate term for his view toward God. 64. Francis Bacon, “Of Atheism,” in The Essays (London: Haviland, 1625), 90. 65. Johnston, Saving God, 44. 66. John Bowker, Why Religions Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 274.

211

212

Fundamental Theology

Christian theologians thus argue that because God is radically distinct from the universe, wholly other from what God has created, God could never be shown to be unreal by means of empirical, scientific inquiry. The methods used in such inquiry can only investigate the natural world, its processes, and phenomena. To move from the scientific investigation of the natural world to make a sweeping claim about the non-reality of God assumes that God is conceived in some way as being a part of the universe. But this conflation of the Creator and the creation is precisely what cannot be done, at least according to orthodox Christian theology. God transcends objectivity and objective investigation and remains ultimately incomprehensible, as we noted in Chapter 4. Likewise, to think that scientific explanations for natural processes and phenomena could falsify faith claims about God’s action and presence in the natural world presupposes that those explanations cannot be understood to fit with divine action in the world. God’s action and the self-functioning of entities within the natural world cannot be so easily played against each other, as if a person must choose between them. Moreover, sacramental Christians, which includes confessional Lutherans, as well as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other Christians, will talk about God’s action and presence in the world in ways that do not necessarily conflict with scientific understandings of nature and efficient causes but that go beyond them to make statements of a different kind. Naturalistic explanations of contingent causes in nature do not need to conflict with the Christian doctrine of creation, nor should God be understood to be a finite cause among other causes. We will return to this and related issues in Chapter 15. What about the more rigorous arguments of the classic atheists, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud? How do they stand up against their critics? Certainly their arguments have been able to raise serious doubts about the reality of God, but they too have not been able “to make God’s non-existence unquestionable.”67 None of the classic atheistic theories about religion and God has been able to demonstrate conclusively that God is merely an infantile illusion (Freud), a projection of human needs (Feuerbach), or an opiate to console people in a cruel world (Marx). Each of these antitheistic views presupposes the non-reality of God and the falsity of religious belief, including specifically Christian belief. A recent analysis of the development of modern secular social theories points to the same dynamic. Such theories are themselves “theologies or anti-theologies in disguise,” which have within them certain theological and antitheological assumptions.68 Many have rightly noted that atheism, too, is an undemonstrable faith, which means that it also remains open to question.

67. Hans Küng, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 329. 68. John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 3.

Atheisms

It is also conceivable that both the perspective of those who stress that religion, including Christianity, is a projection of human consciousness and the perspective of the theist may not necessarily be essentially contradictory. It is possible that both positions may coexist with one another, each functioning within its particular frame of reference. Sociologist Peter Berger observed: “What appears as a human projection in one may appear as a reflection of divine realities in another. The logic of the first perspective does not preclude the possibility of the latter.”69 Berger went on to illustrate the point with an analogy to mathematics, which is a pure projection of human consciousness. Mathematicians can be completely isolated from any contact with the natural world and still create mathematical universes that arise entirely from their thinking. Nevertheless, the natural sciences continually rediscover that the natural world, too, in its concrete essence, conforms to mathematical relations. In other words, the mathematics that human beings “project” out of their consciousness seems to correspond to a mathematical and physical reality that is external to them, and which their consciousness seems to reflect. That same kind of dynamic could be the case with at least some projections of the human religious consciousness. Precisely because there are competing and contradictory truth claims about reality as a whole, “competing narratives,” so to speak, there is the need to weigh alternative understandings critically and to strive for clarity about the basic questions of truth with respect to nature, history, language, the religions, and, ultimately, God.70 To be sure, Marx’s social-political critique, in particular, is often insightful and accurate, but his critique pales in comparison to God’s own critique through God’s law, and it underestimates the guile and power of evil to corrupt all creaturely entities. While Marx’s atheistic critique of religion can be helpful to the believing Christian as a valid criticism of false understandings of God and religion, including Christianity, Christians will argue that his notion of social and political liberation will not truly liberate us from sin, death, and the power of evil. Protestants should thus agree with the important rejoinder to social-political atheism that was set forth in Vatican II’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World”: The church also teaches that the importance of earthly tasks is not diminished by eschatological hope but that on the contrary their fulfillment is strengthened by additional motives. But when the divine foundation and the hope of eternal life are missing, human dignity is seriously impaired, as frequently occurs today, and the

69. Peter Berger, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (New York: Anchor, 1970), 58. 70. Wolfhart Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, trans. Philip Clayton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 6. See also Dianne L. Oliver, “Religion as ‘Truth-Claims,’ ” in Introduction to Religious Studies, ed. Paul O. Myhre (Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2009), 51.

213

214

Fundamental Theology

mysteries of life and death, and of guilt and grief, remain unsolved, often resulting in people’s sinking into despair.71

Then, too, we need to point out to Marx that Jesus never pretended to be the Great Reliever of all pain and suffering. In fact, a central teaching of Jesus entails calling people to follow him by “taking up their cross” (Mk 8.34). Those who follow Jesus do not expect to escape pain or misery by loving and obeying Jesus. The contemporary Lutheran pastor and writer Peter Marty rightly states: “The Christian faith does not remove agony or ordeal from life.”72 It is important to note, too, that the evil realities of the Holocaust and other injustices in history have not led to the complete rejection of God or religion, even after Auschwitz. For more than two millennia theologians, Christian and otherwise, have wrestled with the problem of evil (both natural evil and moral evil), of pain, suffering, and death, and they have responded in various ways to myriad instances of pestilence and famine, war and genocide, earthquake and tsunami, not to mention their own personal and familial sufferings, illnesses, and deaths. Over against Rubenstein’s rejection of divine transcendence stands Emil Fackenheim’s summons, cited in the introductory chapter, namely, to believe in God’s transcendent judgment as a protest against the evils freely created by human beings. Still another survivor of Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel (1928–2016), agreed. This famous scholar and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize repeatedly gave voice to theological protest from within his religious tradition: I have never renounced my faith in God. I have risen against His justice, protested His silence and sometimes His absence, but my anger rises up within faith and not outside it. I admit that this is hardly an original position. It is part of Jewish tradition … I will never cease to rebel against those who committed or permitted Auschwitz, including God. The questions I once asked myself about God’s silence remain open. If they have an answer, I do not know it. More than that, I refuse to know it. But I maintain that the death of six million human beings poses a question to which no answer will ever be forthcoming. My Talmudist master Rabbi Saul Lieberman has pointed out another way to look at it. One can—and must—love God. One can challenge Him and even be angry with Him, but one must also pity Him. “Do you know which of all the characters in the Bible is most tragic?” he asked me. “It is God, blessed be His name, God whose creatures so often disappoint and betray Him.”73

There is a similarity here with the protest theism of Dostoevsky’s Ivan, but it is a voice that is raised from within a religious tradition, not from the outside. It is a protest that fits with the lament of Job, the careful meditation on divine justice and 71. Gaudium et spes, 21 (Tanner, 2.1080). 72. Peter W. Marty, “Companion in Our Pain,” Christian Century (January 31, 2018): 3. 73. Elie Wiesel, All Rivers Run to the Sea: Memoirs (New York: Schocken, 1995), 84–5.

Atheisms

doubt by the psalmist Asaph (see Ps. 73), and the accusations against God that are articulated in other Psalms as well. Ps. 22 was prayed by the dying Jesus, in his loud cry of dereliction from the cross. The issue of theodicy is not resolved in these Scriptures. Rather, the issue is raised and addressed within a kind of “protest faith.” Such a faith presupposes a basic moral worldview, which has been disrupted by unspeakable immorality and evil. But the moral dimension is precisely what gives rise to the protest. Whence this moral outrage? Does it not already imply a sense of what is good, right, true, and beautiful, which then serves as the very basis for the moral protest? And would such a moral protest have arisen in the first place if the consciences of those making it had not first been significantly formed by a religious moral understanding that still pervades Western culture? For good reasons, many Christians will insist on rejecting Nietzsche’s nihilistic, amoral vision about the superman and his vitriolic attack on Christian love and sacrificial service. They will argue that moral, compassionate action for the downtrodden, “the least of these” (Mt. 25.40), the poor and the sick, is the right position to take as a matter of principle. And they will share Ivan’s outrage at the injustices of the world. Jürgen Moltmann wisely observes: The person who has never “contended” with God like Job did doesn’t understand the crucified Christ. And conversely, the person who doesn’t believe in God and his justice ends up by no longer rebelling against this unjust world either. True faith in God isn’t a naive, childish trust. It is a continually surmounted unbelief: “Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief.” Profound faith grows up out of the pains and doubts, the torments and rebellions, that we permit. Life is not fair, but God is good. True faith is the strength to say “Nevertheless,” and to stand fast in assailments. People who recognize God in the face of the crucified Christ have protest atheism within them—but as something they have overcome.74

The frank problem with atheistic critiques of God that are based on observations about natural disasters and moral evil is their false assumption that God can be reduced to an anthropomorphic, finite, moral actor within the universe. Such arguments assume that God’s purposes are measurable by the same norm as ours and that God’s ultimate ends for his creatures are restricted to the universe as we perceive it. Contemporary theologian David Bentley Hart makes a profound point when he writes: Unless one can see the beginning and end of all things, unless one possesses a divine, eternal vantage upon all of time, unless one knows the precise nature of the relation between divine and created freedom, unless indeed one can fathom infinite wisdom, one can draw no conclusions from finite experience regarding the coincidence in God 74. Moltmann, “What Is a Theologian?,” 192.

215

216

Fundamental Theology

of omnipotence and perfect goodness. One may still hate God for worldly suffering, if one chooses, or deny him, but one cannot in this way “disprove” him.75

What orthodox Christians will refrain from doing is offering facile theological explanations, in the manner of Job’s friends, when they attempt to speak of God in the face of terrible suffering and unspeakable evil. Who is in a position to make such statements? Particularly disturbing are those Christians who think such suffering can be tied directly to God’s providential will (as if there are no wills, principalities, or powers at work in creation that are contrary to the will of God [cf. Gal. 4.3; Eph. 2.2, 6.12]), or that such suffering is the direct result of God’s wrath against human sin, or that it was sent by God to be educative for us, or that God allowed the suffering and death to happen to test our faith in his divine goodness. Better to keep silent in the face of such terrible, irrational circumstances, such dark, even demonic, mysteries, than to offer rationalized theodicies. If one must speak, better then to agree with the rebellious theism of Ivan, but move beyond it to adopt the faith of Alyosha and the Elder Zosima, trusting that the triune God—the Father, the crucified and risen Son, and the Holy Spirit—can freely and ultimately act to bring goodness out of the darkness of human sin, evil, and misery (cf., e.g., Rom. 8.18-39). That hope is a basic element in Christian faith. It provides the foundation for selfless love for God’s creation, which in turn leads to a vision of the world as it should be seen, reflecting the true glory of God.76 What about the more modest claims of the agnostic? To be sure, those who say that they are unsure about knowing God are partly right. As we have already noted, a principal teaching of the Christian faith is that God is ultimately unknowable. This is partly what makes God, “God.” But agnostics do in fact have some knowledge of God, sufficient to make them reject belief in God (or what they think is “God”), or at least to make them wonder about the reality of God. Agnostics have presuppositions about God that lead them to question God’s reality. Those presuppositions involve at least some knowledge. For example, a few agnostics might conclude that God has not given any revelation, thus implying that God is incapable of giving revelation or of providing human beings with any divine knowledge. Other agnostics are genuinely doubtful about the truthfulness of the data of Christian divine revelation and are unconvinced of the divine reality that others affirm on the basis of the same evidence. Or they think it an impossible task to judge the truth and falsity of competing claims to “divine revelation” within the multiplicity of the world’s religions. Still others, perhaps more confident than the typical agnostic, and thus closer toward the position

75. David Bentley Hart, The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 13–14 (emphasis in original). 76. Hart, The Doors of the Sea, 60.

Atheisms

of atheism, seem to assume that any claim to divine revelation, either general or specific, is an illusion. But could it be that atheists and agnostics are themselves relying on wishful thinking? If so, could it be that such individuals are hoping that God is not real, since that reality, if it were true, might call into question some of their cherished assumptions about themselves and their world? Or could it be that atheists and agnostics have not fully investigated that which rational theists point to as the basis for their knowledge of God, in which case the former are rejecting as unreal a figment of their own imagination? It could be that what the atheist and agnostic reject as “God” is what the theist will reject as well, since such a conception does not fit the data on which theists affirm their faith. Conversely, the theist might respond to both the atheist and the agnostic with the metaphysical question about why they trust reality at all. What is the ultimate basis for their confidence in the trustworthiness of the reality that they encounter? Of the meaningfulness and trusting character of their life as a whole? What is the ground of their individual life-purpose? To many theists, such as the late Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng, the denial of God seems to involve the one making such a denial in a contradiction: on the one hand the person is clearly attempting to live a meaningful, purposeful, moral life, often in view of suffering, setback, and death, and yet the person gives vocal commitment to the lack of any basic, meaningful grounds for such a life. To the theist, such a denial of God seems to imply the rejection of an ultimate basis for the meaningfulness of reality as a whole, including the meaningfulness and purposefulness of one’s individual human life. Küng strongly protested against the coherence of such a stance: No, it is not a matter of indifference whether we affirm or deny God. The price paid by atheism for its denial is obvious. It is exposed by an ultimate groundlessness, … [and] aimlessness, [and exposed] to the danger of possible disunion, meaninglessness, worthlessness, hollowness of reality as a whole. When we become aware of this, the atheist is exposed also quite personally to the danger of an ultimate abandonment, menace and decay, resulting in doubt, fear, even despair. All this is true, of course, only if atheism is quite serious and not an intellectual pose, snobbish caprice, or thoughtless superficiality.77

Is the atheist or the agnostic really able to provide lasting, satisfying, positive answers to the ultimate, metaphysical questions that were raised in the first pages of the introductory chapter? Perhaps they can, but the sufficient reasons for their responses to those boundary questions would be worth examining: Who am I? What or who can I trust? On what basis? Why am I living under these specific and relative conditions of my life and not others? What is the purpose of my life? Where am I going? How 77. Küng, Does God Exist?, 571 (trans. modified).

217

218

Fundamental Theology

shall I live? To whom am I responsible? What is the meaning of friendship, love, personal sacrifice, courage, suffering? How shall I address my mistakes, my faults, my failures, and those of others? What is the meaning of my death? Why can the universe be understood rationally, at least in part? Can I count upon an unconditioned reality in the midst of all the conditions of my life? The atheist and the agnostic respond to these questions very differently, if they respond to them at all, from those who affirm God as the basis of reality as a whole and thus as the basis for their life and all others. At the very least, theists are able to offer reasons for their trust in the meaningfulness of reality as a whole and for the positive answers that they give in response to those boundary questions. That trust and those answers are grounded in an ultimate, transpersonal source of purpose, and oriented toward an ultimate goal that supports one’s life, in the midst of all the uncertainties and absurdities of life, and give it meaning, direction, and stability.78

The persistence of God in human experience Despite atheistic critiques of God and religion, and despite agnostic reluctance to come to a committed position, one way or the other, belief in God persists in the modern, secular age for good reasons.79 Would not Hume be surprised that people still confess religious faith and act upon it in the modern world, a world that has been marked by wonderful advances in science and technology but also a world where modern science and technology have led to weapons of mass destruction and have contributed to the conditions that made the Holocaust possible to such a terrible scale? Would Hume not be surprised that religious faith is affirmed today, even by people who have suffered radical evil? Would he not be surprised that religious faith continues to attract highly educated people, even some who were formerly convinced 78. Küng, Does God Exist?, 572. Küng’s position here is quite similar to that of the American Protestant theologian Schubert Ogden, who stressed that Christian theology needs to begin by analyzing common human experiences that give rise to the general revelation of God. See the title essay in his book, The Reality of God and Other Essays (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 21–43. Ogden, too, defined “faith” as a basic confidence in the meaningfulness of life. Ogden’s approach to God, however, is critical of classical theism and supportive of a form of process theology. 79. For the fullest and most remarkable critical appraisal of the rise of “secularization” in the Western world, see Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). Contrary to other theorists of secularism, Taylor does not think that “the human aspiration to religion” is in serious decline in Western societies. There continues to be a serious desire on the part of most human beings to respond to the transcendent, however it is further specified and defined.

Atheisms

atheists, such as Peter Hitchens (the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens), Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, A. N. Wilson, Antony Flew, and Peter Schjeldahl?80 Could it be that atheistic critiques of religion and God do not necessarily lead to the destruction and elimination of religion, including Christianity, or to the destruction of religious faith and commitment, but can lead to the legitimate critique of false understandings, false idols, and evil practices within the religions so as to clear the ground for a new understanding of religious faith and practice?81 Havel himself left open the possibility of new meaning that might surprise one in the midst of the crisis of meaning. As people today know too well, religious faith and openness to transcendence can be dangerous, as can the strong ideals and ideologies of the anti-religious. Idolatry of any kind tends to breed violence. Is it any wonder that the prophetic texts of the Hebrew Scriptures are most concerned to speak against every idolatry and to proclaim that God alone is the Lord of all creation and that everyone is accountable to God? The apostolic Scriptures in the NT teach the same when they appeal to the transcendent lordship of the risen Jesus Christ and reject all other gods as idols. Jesus, too, was critical of the ideologically rigid religious institutions of his day. (Marx failed to acknowledge this prophetic strain within biblical religion, as if the biblical writings were in fact merely concerned to keep the poor and working classes drugged and 80. Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010); A. N. Wilson, “Why I Believe Again,” New Statesmen (April 2, 2009); Antony Flew and Gary R. Habermas, “Exclusive Interview with Antony Flew,” Philosophia Christi 6 (Winter 2004): 197–212; and Flew, There Is a God. After describing his journey from militant atheism (he was a Trotskyist) to Christian faith, Peter Hitchens (b. 1951) refutes three typical atheistic complaints against the religions by arguing that conflicts fought in the name of religion are often not about God or religion (he freely acknowledges the terrible history of cruelties in Christianity), that the determination of what is morally right cannot occur without a transcendent, objective source of all good, and that officially atheist states have shown a consistent tendency to commit mass murders in the name of a greater good. He and others have drawn attention to the “religious” zeal and absolutist-fundamentalist spirit that many proponents of the “new atheism” exhibit in their writings and public comments. A. N. Wilson (b. 1950) was a believer, then an atheist, and now a believer again. He has been critical of the fanatical anti-religionists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, who “ignore all the benign aspects of religion and see it purely as a sinister agent of control” (A. N. Wilson, “Religion of Hatred: Why We Should No Longer Be Cowed by the Chattering Classes Ruling Britain Who Sneer at Christianity,” The Daily Mail [April 10, 2009]). “Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat” (ibid.). We have already noted the change in thinking by Flew. Peter Schjeldahl (1942–2022) was the art critic for The New Yorker and The Village Voice magazines. Raised as a Lutheran Christian, he became an atheist at the onset of puberty but then moved back into a Christian faith late in his life. See his self-elegy, “77 Sunset Me,” The New Yorker (December 23, 2019): 34–45. 81. This is the thesis developed by the Christian philosopher Paul Ricoeur in his 1969 Bampton lecture, “Religion, Atheism, and Faith,” in The Conflict of Interpretations, 440–67.

219

220

Fundamental Theology

deluded beneath the rich and the powerful.) Moreover, when so-called materialistic positivists reject all metaphysics and theology as “meaningless,” they themselves seem to be engaging in metaphysical reflection in order to be able to make this assertion. In other words, they too are attempting to speak meaningfully about the nature of being as a totality, even if in doing so they call into question the ultimate meaning of that about which they are attempting to speak meaningfully. We need not point out that the very act of raising critical questions against metaphysics, including its theological dimension, is itself a product of this metaphysical tradition—for the spirit of critical inquiry over against traditional religious understandings is one of the abiding contributions of the Greeks to philosophical theology. Moreover, as even Nietzsche implied, an entirely materialistic, naturalistic view of the mind or the soul has tremendous difficulties in maintaining that a human being is actually a moral agent, “with capacities for deliberation and argument on grounds of reasoning, capable of changes of mind. Birds need feathers to fly. Human beings need brain cells to produce the most baffling of things in consciousness. But in consciousness there are aspirations beyond the material world.”82 Is it any wonder that finding a materialistic explanation for human consciousness itself, let alone accounting for its moral dimension (“conscience”), is a serious challenge for those who seek to defend a strictly materialistic view of human beings? Perhaps the persistence of religious faith, including Christian faith, is due, not to a nasty virus-like quality that religious people possess, as Richard Dawkins would have people believe, but to the apparent fact that the modern sciences are incapable of fully explaining religious experience, of eliminating all sense of wonder, mystery, and awe that often arise in human life, and of replacing a basic and fundamental religious trust in the “worthwhileness” of human existence before God, the sacred, the holy, the transcendent ground of all that is (assuming for the moment that these terms are nearly synonymous). Basic metaphysical questions keep surfacing in human lives that direct people toward the transcendent, the sacred, the holy, in short, toward what many people call “God.” Certainly, countless individuals from various religious traditions have told others about their extraordinary visions of heaven or the afterlife. Others have made claims to divine revelation that have put them in a mental ward at a state psychiatric hospital. People are thus right to be skeptical about specific claims to divine revelation. But they should be equally skeptical about those who want to dismiss all discussion of religious experience out-of-hand, simply because it does not fit totally into their conception (or preconception) of reality. One does not need to have had a special mystical, ecstatic experience to sense the sacred or the holy or the divine presence. Many people simply become aware, often gradually, of a wondrous reality or Other “behind” or “above” everything that occurs 82. Chadwick, “Philosophical Tradition and the Self,” 80.

Atheisms

in human life.83 The Roman Catholic theologian Bernard Lonergan insightfully outlined four paths that lead to the question of God: The question of God is epistemological, when we ask how the universe can be intelligible. It is philosophic when we ask why we should bow to the principle of sufficient reason, where there is no sufficient reason for the existence of contingent things. It is moral when we ask whether the universe has a moral ground and so a moral goal. It finally is religious when we ask whether there is anyone for us to love with all our heart and all our soul and all our mind and all our strength.84

The idea of “an objective Ideal of supreme goodness and beauty, toward which human life is oriented at its most basic level, and which is discernible in the intelligibility of the world, in the extraordinary beauties of nature and art, in the demand and attraction of morality, and in the sense of personal presence that can be felt in prayer and contemplation,” is one that most people continue to find persuasive.85 Historical and ethnological investigations into the world’s religions certainly indicate that religions have undergone a process of development over time. But many ethnological researchers today are critical of attempts to explain all religions on the basis of an overarching theory of their historical genesis, whether within a larger evolutionary framework or in a framework that assumes a stage of perfection at the beginning and only subsequent degeneration in all later forms.86 Thus, the claim that all religions are based on fear or on superstitious beliefs in spirits or souls (“animism”), or on magic and taboo and religious rites connected with a totem (sacred object for a clan or group), or in various combinations of these, has generally not been supported by actual ethnological investigations into so-called “primitive” religions and other religions. What is remarkable is that all human cultures seem to have been connected to practices and beliefs that one may properly call “religious.” Such a fact ought to give one pause when addressing the important question as to whether or not so-called modern materialism, with its confident assertions about the nature of reality and atheism, is a more adequate worldview than those that remain open to the transcendent, to mystery, to the sacred, and to venerable religious 83. Hywell David Lewis, Our Experience of God (New York, Macmillan 1959). 84. Bernard Lonergan, Philosophy of God and Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973), 54–5. This quote provides an amplification on Kant’s three basic metaphysical questions: What can we know? What ought we to do? For what may we hope? 85. Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, 142. 86. See, for example, Brian Morris, Anthropological Studies of Religion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Robin Horton, Patterns of Thought in Africa and the West (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Benson Saler, Conceptualizing Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1993); Morton Klass, Ordered Universes (Boulder: Westview, 1995); and Stephen D. Glazier, ed., Anthropology of Religion (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1997). For an impressive, recent attempt at accounting for religion within an overarching evolutionary framework, see Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution.

221

222

Fundamental Theology

traditions from the past. How can one be so certain that there is no reality at all behind the religions? Even Nietzsche noted, interest in metaphysics and religion has the tendency of persisting in human culture and individual experience: How strong the metaphysical need is, and how hard nature makes it to bid it a final farewell can be seen from the fact that even when the free spirit has divested himself of everything metaphysical, the highest effects of art can easily set the metaphysical strings, which have long been silent or indeed snapped apart, vibrating in sympathy … He feels a profound stab in the heart and sighs for the man who will lead him back to his lost love, whether she be called religion or metaphysics.87

Contrary to the view of many that science would displace religion, belief in God has not disappeared in the modern age, even among many practicing scientists and philosophers, although secularism does pervade huge portions of Western universities. The Canadian Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor (b. 1931) leads us to ponder extraordinary events, such as the death of Princess Diana (1961–97), and to see extraordinary individuals as traces or premonitions of the sacred in our midst, however fragmentary and arguable they are. (He mentions Dorothy Day [1897–1980], Mother Teresa [1910–97], Pope John XXIII [1881–1963], and Pope John Paul II [1920–2005]. One could add others: Eleanor Roosevelt [1884–1962], Dietrich Bonhoeffer [1906–45], Jimmy Carter [b. 1924], and Bono of U2 [b. 1960, whose musical lyrics often address themes of social justice in Christian imagery].) Moreover, Taylor highlights the legacy of certain artifacts within the Christian tradition (the music of Bach, the writings of Dante and Dostoevsky, the sacred spaces of medieval cathedrals) that hint at the transcendent or the divine in our present world. How many people have become believers in God or had their faith in God renewed due to their perception of sublime beauty in art or music? This legacy of the power and beauty in art as it relates to religious experience calls for a brief detour. While the complete unity of religious experience and the experience of beauty in art cannot be supported, since they are not identical, one thoughtful writer wisely affirms that religion and beauty “are parallel lines, which intersect only at infinity and meet in God.”88 This intersection, from a Christian theological perspective, is marked both by the disturbance of human beings, often in the grip of depravity or the demonic, before the mystery of the sacred and by the power of extraordinary beauty to reveal the goodness and surprising grace of God. In this way

87. Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (1878), trans. R. J. Hollingdale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 153. 88. Gerardus van der Leeuw, Sacred and Profane Beauty: The Holy in Art, trans. David A. Green (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 333. See also Jaroslav Pelikan’s valuable, accessible, and fascinating study of “the Holy” in relation to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful: Fools for Christ: Essays on the True, the Good, and the Beautiful (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995).

Atheisms

art can serve as a locus of “the general revelation of God” and provide illumination on human beings and their condition before this general revelation. Such art need not be explicitly “religious,” or even intended by the artist as conveying religious meaning and truth, but it may allow the one who is impacted by its sublime beauty to be given insight into the sacred, the holy, and one’s condition before the mystery of God. Art that is not overtly religious in any way may actually be of tremendous religious significance.89 Truly great, imaginative art has a way of becoming “religiously significant,” of creating variety in religious aesthetic experience, of manifesting “the truth and goodness of the depths of reality,” of manifesting the depths of human longing for the divine—all of which invite further theological reflection upon human beings, their experiences, and their world.90 Some art may reveal “the absence that makes presence possible,” to quote the French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930– 2004), whose postmodern idea of différance, the “radical alterity” that underlies the intelligible world, has been used by some theologians as “a signal of transcendence,” as a pointer to “the Wholly Other.”91 As an outgrowth of his sociological study of religions, Peter Berger identified certain common human gestures or occurrences that serve as yet another set of “signals of transcendence.” Such human traits that point toward the divine are still worth pondering today. One such signal occurs when human beings act to restore order in situations of disorder: a mother comforts her troubled child (“Everything’s going to be all right.”), a medic soothes a mortally wounded person, first responders clear rubble after a bombing attack and begin to rebuild. Such actions seem to correspond to an underlying order of the universe, a divine order that undergirds and justifies all human efforts at ordering.92 Human actions toward the ordering of life and community seem to imply a basic trust in reality, a fundamental faith that reality is “in order,” everything is ultimately “all right.” Of course, to assert this basic faith in the underlying order of reality is itself an act of faith. When a mother comforts a troubled child with the words quoted earlier, is she lying? Or is the mother acting from an intrinsic impulse to give cosmic scope to this order (in the midst of some kind of disorder, including ultimately the disorder of death itself), one that implies not only that human order corresponds in some way to an order that transcends it but that this transcendent order is of such a nature that people can ultimately entrust themselves to it? 89. Frank Burch Brown, Religious Aesthetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 8. 90. Ibid., 111; cf. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, 7 vols, trans. Brian McNeil, Andrew Louth, and Erasmo Leiva Merikakis (New York: Crossroad, 1982–9), 1.117–18. See also the chapter on “The Taste for Art and the Thirst for God,” in Frank Burch Brown, Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste: Aesthetics in Religious Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 95–127. 91. Jacques Derrida, Aporias, trans. D. Dutoit (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993). 92. Berger, A Rumor of Angels, 66–7.

223

224

Fundamental Theology

Berger also drew attention to the presence of play among human beings that draws them beyond ordinary time toward a kind of extraordinary, joyful transcendence of time, which likewise points toward an order beyond normal time, toward eternity. “In playing,” he said, “one steps out of one time into another.”93 Time stands still, or it collapses into the actions of the game. Such joyful playing appears to suspend, or bracket, the reality of “the serious world” in which we are all living toward death (to paraphrase Heidegger’s concept). Playing provides an escape from the mundane, and it brings a kind of peace (often in trying circumstances, e.g., when making music in a time of war, or engaging in mental mathematical equations on one’s deathbed). This type of human experience constitutes a signal of transcendence because it intrinsically points beyond itself to a divine justification, one that cannot be proven but only achieved through a kind of implicit faith that ultimately vindicates all human joy. In addition, Berger noted the persistence of hope in hopeless circumstances. Human hope has “always asserted itself most intensely in the face of experiences that seemed to spell utter defeat, most intensely of all in the face of the final defeat of death.”94 Human courage in defiance of death is perhaps the most profound manifestation of hope, provided it is linked to hopes for human creation, justice, or compassion, for example, the dying artist who strives to finish her work of art, people who sacrifice their own interests and comfort for the sake of afflicted individuals. Such hope seems to imply a fundamental and ultimate “no!” to death. There seems to be a “death-refusing hope at the very core” of our humanity.95 To be sure, such a “no!” could be based on an illusion, but it could also be grounded in another reality, the divine, one that would validate this hope as something other than an illusion. Berger also set forth an argument from damnation, which is based on experiences in which we are so outraged by the evil and inhumane deeds of offenders that the only adequate response to the offense and the offender “seems to be a curse of supernatural dimensions.”96 There are certain deeds that are so monstrously evil that they cry out to heaven—or also to hell. The example that Berger used was the trials of the various Nazi war criminals. The “justice” meted out to them seemed so insufficient in view of the extent of the crimes they had perpetrated. “Hanging is insufficient!”, many observers cried. But Berger also drew attention to the (universal?) imperative to save a child from murder, even at the cost of killing the putative murderer. The killing of the innocent, of course, raises the question of the justice and power of God and leads religious people to wrestle with a divine retribution for perpetrators of inhumanity. Berger’s final signal of transcendence is based on the phenomenon of humor. While “the comic reflects the imprisonment of the human spirit in the world” and 93. Ibid., 72. 94. Ibid., 77. 95. Ibid., 80. 96. Ibid., 81.

Atheisms

recognizes the discrepancy in the human condition, “It also relativizes it, and thereby suggests that the tragic perspective on the discrepancies of the human condition can also be relativized.”97 By laughing at the imprisonment of the human condition, “Humor implies that this imprisonment is not final but will be overcome.”98 A good example is so-called gallows humor, which makes light of death and suggests the possibility of a larger, transcendent order beyond one’s immediate, dire straits. This, too, he argues, is a kind of pointer toward the transcendent or God. Classic phenomenological studies by such diverse scholars of religion as William James (1842–1910), Rudolf Otto, Gerardus van der Leeuw (1890–1950), and Mircea Eliade also support the position that “the sacred” or “the holy” has persisted into the modern age, and that it will persist.99 The aim of these studies is to describe “meanings” and to avoid making critical judgments about their validity or truthfulness.100 As indicated in the introductory chapter, Otto referred to “the holy” as a uniquely religious and primal phenomenon that he thought was best described as “mysterium tremendum et fascinans,” that which is beyond our human ability to comprehend or conceptualize, the extraordinary and mysterious, and thus that which leads to a sense of awe and even dread. Otto characterized all such experiences of “the holy” as “numinous” (from the Latin term for divine), since they result from the manifestation of divine majesty and power and lead to the awareness of one’s creaturely condition before the “wholly Other.”101 Eliade built on Otto’s exploration of religious experience and concluded similarly that human beings become aware of “the sacred” because it continually manifests itself in human experience, “shows itself as something wholly different from the profane,” the ordinary.102 This understanding of religious experience is similar to the phenomenological position of Tillich, who held that “the object of theology” is a matter of “ultimate, unconditional, total, infinite concern,” that which “can become a matter of being or not-being for us.”103 Tillich said: “Man is infinitely concerned about the infinity to which he belongs, from which he is separated, and for which he is longing.”104 A similar phenomenological approach to theological discourse was set forth by the American Protestant theologian Langdon Gilkey (1919–2004). His analysis of 97. Ibid., 87–8. 98. Ibid., 88. 99. In addition to the works by James, Otto, and Eliade that we identified in the introduction, see Gerardus van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, 2 vols (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). 100. See Edmund Husserl, Ideas, trans. Boyce Gibson (New York: Macmillan, 1931). 101. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 27. 102. Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 11. 103. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.12, 14. 104. Ibid., 1.14.

225

226

Fundamental Theology

the disjunction between people’s secular understandings of themselves and “the felt character” of their actual existence indicates that modern human beings have not outgrown their need for religious symbols and that these symbols can in turn be explicated by the Christian theologian.105 For example, Gilkey drew attention to the tension between the modern sense of the relativity of everything and the ongoing search for abiding meanings and values and the affirmation of one’s own contingent being: A nonsecular dimension in our experience appears in the lived character of secular life, despite the fact that the forms of our modern self-understanding have no capacity for dealing with it. This strange interloper into our secularity appears not so much as a new reality or being, as rather the ultimate presupposition for dealing with the ordinary relative realities we meet; not so much a presence—though it may be—as a final limit and a demand; not so much an answer as an ultimate question. But what this presupposition entails, what the demand is about, and what the questions ask for is radically and qualitatively different from the rest. It has the character of ultimacy, of finality, of the unconditioned which transcends, undergirds, and even threatens our experience of the ordinary passage of things and our dealings with the entities in that passage. It is, therefore, sacred as well as ultimate, the region where value as well as existence is grounded.106

The American Roman Catholic theologian David Tracy has also focused on the concept of “limit” in “ordinary” human experience (e.g., human finitude and contingency), which he has borrowed from the philosopher Jaspers, quoted near the beginning of the introduction. Tracy identifies these “boundary situations” as those that create certain limits within human experience, which at the same time point beyond (or ground) such ordinary experiences. For example, he notes that people exhibit a basic or fundamental trust in the worthwhileness of their existence or a basic belief in order and value, whether in the common culture or a subculture. This insight is similar to Berger’s detection of a basic “order” within human cultures that serves as a signal toward transcendence. These boundary situations and signals of transcendence, as Tracy insists, point to the abiding religious dimension of human life—which then in turn, he further rightly insists, must be seen as pointing to God.107 These signals appear within life’s “limit questions,” for instance, within science, such questions as: Is scientific investigation possible if the universe is not intelligible? Can the world be intelligible if it does not have an intelligent ground? Are there ethical limits to scientific research? Those signals also appear in life’s “limit situations” such 105. Landon Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God-Language (Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill, 1969). 106. Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind, 253. The influence of Tillich here is obvious. 107. David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1975), esp. 92–109.

Atheisms

as: sickness, guilt, fear, anxiety, death, and the “ecstatic experiences” of love, joy, the creative act, and other profound reassurances of the importance and meaningfulness of one’s life. How is it that these basic human questions and common human experiences suggest that human beings are inherently religious, and what do we mean by “religious?” We humans continually encounter those boundary questions. We are forever acting, thinking, and speaking in ways that provide subtle and not-so-subtle clues about what we in fact believe about ourselves and others in the context of the larger scheme of things. Since that scheme always contains what Paul Ricoeur called “a surplus of meaning,” we face the mystery of the world and its being without ever being able to comprehend it fully. A purely secular worldview has no ready point of reference for this depth experience—scientific academia invariably uses reductive categories and terms when encountering such phenomena. But these encounters with life’s “transcendent mystery” can jolt (or may lead) people to seek answers to life’s “existential” questions of meaning and purpose and to develop ways of addressing these experiences of guilt, shame, suffering, love, and death. These common, “ordinary” experiences push people in the direction of “the infinite” (Schleiermacher), “the ultimate” or “the unconditioned” (Tillich, Gilkey), “the holy” (Otto), “the sacred” (Eliade), or “the transcendent” (Jaspers, Rahner, Berger, Tracy). It is this depth experience that is meant by the necessarily religious dimension of human life, and as this experience presents people with something that addresses them from beyond themselves, for the Western tradition insists on the necessarily theistic interpretation of human existence. To do so, it uses symbols that also point beyond themselves, principally, of course, the term God. Thus, the general revelation of God in Christian theology normally refers to this ultimate, sacred, transcendent reality, “the powerful ground of man’s world and the source of power to overcome the experiences of evil and suffering which occur in that world.”108 According to those who study the religions phenomenologically—that is, those who try to uncover the concrete and actual forms of the religions, their rituals and symbols, and the meaningfulness of their discourse—religious experience cannot be explained away either as the product of the unconscious or as social processes or the result of a medical pathology. Their scholarly work shows that the complexity of religious experience alone ought to caution one not to attempt a restatement of all religious experience into nonreligious categories. For Eliade, the sacred is a basic, elemental, and permanent aspect of the experience of human beings, both primitive and modern. While the phenomenological study of the religions has made indisputably clear that religious experience is always culturally conditioned, some scholars of religion, such as Wayne Proudfoot (b. 1939) and Stephen Katz (b. 1944), have argued that 108. Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, 346.

227

228

Fundamental Theology

religious experience is entirely the result of cultural expectations in the communities in which the religious experience occurs.109 This argument, however, that all religious experience can be reduced merely to forms of cultural expression has met with serious criticism. Significant research indicates that religious experience is not culturally determined or simply reducible to matters of language and culture. William P. Alston’s (1921–2009) phenomenological study into mystical experience indicates that for the subjects of the experience “something,” namely, “God,” has been presented or given to their consciousness, similar to the way in which objects in the environment are (apparently) presented to one’s consciousness in sense perception, and that this appearance or presentation is “essentially nonconceptual and nonjudgmental.”110 Against Proudfoot and Katz, Alston rejects the notion that religious experience is entirely a matter of subjective experience that is then followed by a causal explanation. Religious experience cannot be reduced to linguistic and cultural expression, just as emotional states cannot be fully grasped through explanatory description. This same research would seem to call into question those who insist on an entirely culturallinguistic interpretation of specific religions, such as Christianity.111 The phenomenological understanding of religious experience also finds tentative, if ambiguous, support in recent work in the cognitive sciences, still in its infancy stages. This research attempts to uncover and explain the neural basis for such experience, while bracketing out any concern for a possible transindividual source (“God”) for the experience. For example, Eugene d’Aquili (1940–98) and Andrew Newberg (b. 1966) have investigated the parietal lobe and brain states during religious meditation and prayer and have concluded that religion is an integral aspect of human experience, that it has a biological basis, and that this biological basis is at least part of the reason why religions have not disappeared in scientifically informed cultures.112 Other scholars have begun to integrate a neuroscientific understanding of human behavior with a spiritual/religious/theological perspective and to allow neuroscientific knowledge and methodology to shed light on a wide variety of

109. Wayne Proudfoot, Religious Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) and Stephen Katz, Mysticism and Language (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). 110. William P. Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 11, 16, 39–40. See also Gregory R. Peterson, Minding God: Theology and the Cognitive Sciences (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 103–4. 111. The key work that makes an argument for a “cultural-linguistic” approach to Christian teaching is George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine. 112. Eugene G. d’Aquili and Andrew B. Newberg, The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). See also Andrew B. Newberg, Principles of Neurotheology (Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2010) and Andrew B. Newberg, Neurotheology: How Science Can Enlighten Us about Religion (New York: Columbia University Press, 2021), which also provides a review of the recent literature in this field of study.

Atheisms

religious experiences and concepts. Many within this burgeoning scholarly field of neurotheology conclude that human beings seem to be biologically oriented toward religion.113 Thus, the “biology of belief ” may be a principal reason for “why God won’t go away.”114 Lest one conclude, however, that such biological insights into religious experience eliminate or at least discredit the object of the experience, Alvin Plantinga cautions: “To show that there are natural processes that produce religious belief does nothing to discredit it; perhaps God designed us in such a way that it is by virtue of those processes that we come to have knowledge of him.”115 It needs to be stressed that phenomenological approaches to the study of religion, wherein the terms wholly Other or the sacred or ultimate concern could be used interchangeably with the term God, do not necessarily establish an actual reality behind the terms. This same assertion applies to neurotheological investigations of religious experience, which remain neutral regarding the actual cause of the experience. While such investigations and approaches undermine the claim that religious experiences are merely cultural and linguistic in nature, they do not provide any real insight into the actual external source of the experiences. Does the concept of “the Holy” or “the sacred” or “ultimate concern” within culturally shaped religious experience—marked as it is by reference to a plurality of gods and divine beings in the world religions—actually refer to a single reality? How can one know for sure that one’s religious sense or experience is actually “of God?” Which god(s)? In order to gain insight into the question of the actual source of the religious experience, external to the person experiencing it, we need to move from the phenomenological inquiry into religious experience to the field of philosophical theology proper, primarily classical theism and process theology. As Peterson rightly noted, while the theologian is convinced that the actual external cause of individual religious experience is indeed God, we cannot know this for certain, and so “once again we are thrown back onto a larger theological framework in order to interpret such experiences.”116 Pannenberg pointed out that those scholars who completely suspend judgment regarding the reality or illusory character of the object of religious experience have already made a prejudiced decision in favor of an Enlightenment perspective that interprets religious experience solely in anthropological, this-worldly, naturalistic, and even atheistic terms.117 Pannenberg’s

113. James Ashbrook and C. R. Albright, The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1997). 114. Andrew Newberg, Eugene G. D’Aquili, and Vince Rause, Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (New York: Ballantine, 2001). 115. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 145. 116. Peterson, Minding God, 116. 117. Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, 363.

229

230

Fundamental Theology

criticism rightly applies to the methodological reflections of Berger and others who agree with Berger, since scholars of religion ought not prejudice scholarly discussion and the pursuit of the truth by rejecting all claims to knowledge and by maintaining an exclusive, a priori commitment to “methodological atheism.”118 The reader will recall, too, that Pannenberg rightly stressed the need to make judgments regarding the truth or falsity of religious claims. A strictly phenomenological approach to Christian theology thus comes up short, since it leaves off any further discussion about such truth claims. If we place the exclusively anthropological Enlightenment view of God-talk at one end of the spectrum of kinds of philosophical theology, at the other end lies the mystical view. Certainly, the religious mystic claims to have a knowledge of God that comes from an immediate, nonrational, non-inferential experience of the Holy, one that is self-authenticating and often beyond the ability of language to describe (at least rationally). Yet that very claim places the mystic outside the field of philosophical theology, which by definition talks about “God” rationally and inferentially. Within that field we now narrow our focus to the value and limitations of the relatively recent, renowned category of “process theology” in relation to the still dominant classical theism. Despite the importance of emphases within process theology and its metaphysics (e.g., its emphasis upon the temporality of God to engage the world in love and to respond to the world), which can serve as correctives to misleading metaphysical concepts, classical theism is still the dominant position within Western Christian theological (and philosophical) traditions. Such a position has good reasons for remaining the preferred understanding. To speak of a “becoming” God, observes Tillich, as occurs in most forms of process theology, “subjects God to a process which has the character of a fate or which is completely open to the future and has the character of an absolute accident. In both cases the divinity of God is undercut.”119 There is no real possibility for hope within process theology, since it merely affirms God as One who shares our suffering, but offers no compelling reason for why God could ever overcome evil and sin. Within classical theism, however, the transcendent infinity, immutability, and actuality of God beyond all finite categories are maintained. In this view the allpowerful, all-knowing, all-good, unconditioned God is the “One” cause and goal of all things (in contrast to the plurality of gods in the world’s religions), “the one origin of the unity of the cosmos.”120 Here God is in a position to overcome evil and death and redeem and renew the fallen creation. Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), who was 118. Cf. the careful argument against Berger’s methodological atheism by Michael A. Cantrell, “Must a Scholar of Religion Be Methodologically Atheistic or Agnostic?, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 84 (June 2016): 373–400. 119. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.247. 120. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.70.

Atheisms

himself a process theologian, nevertheless rightly underscored the superlative quality of God that classical theism seeks to affirm as well: God is a name for the uniquely good, admirable, great, worship-eliciting being. Worship, moreover, is not just an unusually high degree of respect or admiration; and the excellence of deity is not just an unusually high degree of merit. There is a difference in kind. God is “Perfect,” and between the perfect and anything as little imperfect as you please is no merely finite, but an infinite step. The superiority of deity to all others cannot (in accordance with established word usage) be expressed by indefinite descriptions, such as “immensely good,” “very powerful,” or even “best” or “most powerful,” but must be a superiority of principle, a definite conceptual divergence from every other being, actual or so much as possible. We may call this divergence “categorical supremacy.”121

The term God, at least as it is commonly understood within classical philosophical theology, also makes possible an ultimate understanding of the being of the universe as an ordered totality (“cosmos”), which in turn supports the understanding of human beings as a single “human community.” Once “the plurality of the gods was reduced to the concept of the one God as the origin of the one world, the word ‘God’ did in fact become a key word for the awareness of the totality of the world and of human life.”122 In contrast to the multiplicity of gods in many world religions— who are understood as individual “beings” that can be spoken of in terms of finite categories—God is the One who transcends all categories, including even numbers, and is the unconditioned ground of all things. Pioneering in this movement toward the one God was the development of Israel’s faith from henotheism, its tribal belief in the one true god, YHWH (the Hebrew word that is the personal name of God), alongside other (false) gods, to monotheism, the belief that there is only one true God, the LORD, the Creator of heaven and earth.123 Greek philosophical theology (see especially the Fragments from Xenophanes of 121. Hartshorne, “Introduction,” Philosophers Speak of God, 7. Ironically, Hartshorne himself proceeded to define God’s “perfection” as implying God’s mutability and “becoming.” 122. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.71. See also the similar point that Tillich makes about “the world” as “cosmos” (Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.170–1). 123. The Hebrew proper name for God is comprised of four consonants that are transliterated into English as YHWH. It seems to be based on the Hebrew verb “to be” (see Exod. 3.14), but no Jew would ever try to pronounce this word, out of respect for its special holiness, and for fear of breaking the divine commandment (“Do not take the name of the LORD your God in vain” [Exod. 20.7]). Some scholars render the divine name in English as “Yahweh,” but this is only a conjecture. Even then, Jews and others do not say this word for the above reasons. Whenever Jews come across the proper name of God (YHWH) in the Scriptures, they substitute another Hebrew word for it, most often the word Adonai (“Lord”). Some Jews also refer to the divine name (YHWH) as Ha-Shem (“The Name”). In most modern English Bibles, the divine name is rendered as “LORD” (in all capital letters), the literal translation of Adonai.

231

232

Fundamental Theology

Colophon) also contributed to the further development of this understanding of God and helped to make the Christian message about the revelation of God in Jesus intelligible to non-Jews and to those who had difficulty in comprehending the Christian understanding of God. Both Judaism and Greek Platonism refer to the immateriality, infinity, and creative providential ordering of the one God, as the source of all that is (of the “universe” = the whole of created beings viewed as one), who is the basis for the reality of truth and for the reliability of the knowledge of created beings.124 Within the NT itself, there is an indication that the one God worshiped by Jews and Christians (and later, Muslims) is in some measure “known” by all people, even those who worship other (false) gods, and that this “natural knowledge of God,” albeit incomplete and imperfect, serves as common ground between non-Christians and Christians when they want to talk further about God on the basis of the revelation given in and through Jesus Christ.

Questions for review and discussion







1. Why do some Christian theologians, such as Tillich, argue that God does not “exist?” Do you agree with their theological point? Why or why not? 2. What are some of the basic types of “atheism?” What do these types of atheism assume about reality? Identify the strongest arguments in favor of one or more types of atheism. What is your assessment of the arguments put forward by the so-called “new atheists?” Do you agree that their arguments are not as strong as the classical proponents of atheism (Marx, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Freud)? 3. How is atheism different from agnosticism? How are they related? 4. The author repeats and supports the basic criticism that Hans Küng, Langdon Gilkey, and David Tracy have leveled against atheism and agnosticism. Do you agree with this critique? Why or why not? 5. Is it not possible that some atheists and agnostics will simply affirm the meaning of their life merely on the basis that the world in which they live is relatively stable and reliable and that they need no recourse to “God” who transcends the universe? What do you make of this affirmation? 6. Describe how phenomenologists study religions. How might recent work in the cognitive sciences support a phenomenological understanding of religious experience? Do you think all religious experiences are “tapping into” the same reality? Why or why not?

124. Cf. “universe,” OED, 2175.

Atheisms

7. What is “neurotheology?” Do you see the findings in this relatively new scholarly field threatening to your faith? Why or why not? 8. Do you agree with Pannenberg’s claim that scholars who completely suspend judgment regarding the reality or illusory character of the object of religious experience (e.g., “God”) have already made a prejudiced decision in favor of an Enlightenment perspective that interprets religious experience solely in anthropological, this-worldly, naturalistic, and even atheistic terms? 9. Both Peter Berger and Charles Taylor point to signals of transcendence in our supposedly secular, Western culture. Can you identify other examples of such signals beyond those mentioned in the chapter? How valid or strong are these signals? 10. What are the principal attributes of God as affirmed within classical philosophical theism? How does this understanding differ from process theology? The author favors classical theism over process theology. Which do you favor? Why?

Suggestions for further reading Brief introductions to atheism: Johann Figl, Walter R. Dietz, John Clayton, Jürgen Henkys, Bert Hoedemaker, and Lore Hühn, “Atheism,” RPP, 1.477–82. George Alfred James, “Atheism,” ER, 1.479–90. Jan Milič Lochman, “Atheism,” EC, 1.151–2. Geddes MacGregor, “Doubt and Belief,” ER, 4.424–30.

Atheisms In addition to the classic works by Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, as well as the resources listed at the end of Chapters 4 and 5 (which contain individual essays on atheist arguments), see the following: Ryan P. Burge, The Nones (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021). [This work includes some reflection on atheism as a factor in the rise of “the nones.”] Michael A. Cantrell, “Must a Scholar of Religion Be Methodologically Atheistic or Agnostic?,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 84 (June 2016): 373–400. [Offers a fuller description of Berger’s methodological atheism, while arguing that such a biased method fabricates, trivializes, and renders inexplicable religious experience, and improperly legitimizes an atheistic worldview.] John Gray, Seven Types of Atheism (London: Penguin, 2018). [Covers the new atheists, secular humanism, scientism, political religions, what I am calling protest theism, atheism without progress, and mystical atheism.]

233

234

Fundamental Theology

John Hick, ed., The Existence of God (New York: Macmillan, 1964). [This collection of readings provides a convenient compendium of the principal historical sources in the debates about the existence of God.] Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). [A major engagement with philosophical atheism by one of the leading Lutheran theologians of the second half of the twentieth century.] Hans Küng, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Crossroad, 1991). [This is a fair examination of the major proponents of atheism by a leading Roman Catholic theologian of the second half of the twentieth century. His affirmation of God shares important similarities to that of Ogden and Tracy, but without buying into their process-oriented metaphysics.] Marcel Neusch, The Sources of Modern Atheism: One Hundred Years of Debate over God, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (New York: Paulist, 1982). [A very helpful and readable analysis of the classic proponents of atheism: Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Sartre, Garaudy, and Bloch.] Graham Oppy, Arguing about Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). [Provides philosophical analysis of classic and recent arguments for the existence of God and concludes that atheism is more supportable than theism. Provides counterarguments and analysis to those by Swinburne, Plantinga, and Ward.] Jordan Howard Sobel, Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). [An accessible, expansive account of the principal figures and arguments on this issue in the philosophy of religion. Sobel’s conclusion is that God does not exist.] Kerry Walters, Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Continuum, 2010). [In addition to providing a good overview of past and present varieties of atheism, Walters identifies some overlap between theism and atheism. His work also contains an excellent bibliography for further research.]

Theodicy David Bentley Hart, The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). [An erudite essay on God and evil by a leading Eastern Orthodox theologian. Hart criticizes the principal atheistic arguments that have been based on widespread evidence of innocent suffering, and he draws on classic Christian thinkers to set forth a graceful vision toward seeing the beauty and glory of God in creation.] Peter Van Inwagen, “The Problem of Evil,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 188–219. [A careful and fair treatment of the issue that respects both atheistic and theistic responses to evil, but ultimately concludes that an omnipotent and morally perfect God could have created a world that contains human suffering in the amount and the kinds we observe.] Hans Schwarz, Who Rules the World: Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021). [Written by a leading international Lutheran scholar, this book provides an overview of the history of Christian theological attempts to

Atheisms

reconcile the manifest evil and pain in the world with the biblical promise of hope and redemption.]

The problem of God and God-language Langdon Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God-Language (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1969). [An important examination of the nature of religious experience and language by the foremost interpreter of Tillich’s theology in the second half of the twentieth century. Gilkey’s book provides a major defense of the need for “God-talk” in contemporary discourse about human experience and offers a careful critique of those who think that language about God is meaningless and empty.] Gordon D. Kaufman, God the Problem (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). [This is another attempt to speak meaningfully about “God” within the context of interpreting human/religious experience. Like Gilkey, he does not offer an argument for the reality of God, but he does demonstrate the meaningfulness of language about God.] Schubert Ogden, The Reality of God and Other Essays (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). [The essay in the title affirms the basic approach to general revelation set forth here, namely, that there is a basic, common religious experience of God that serves as the context for the special revelation that is given in and through Jesus. Ogden also provides a strong critique of classical theism and offers a form of process theology. So his position on theism differs from the one favored here.] Mark I. Wallace, “Can God Be Named Without Being Known? The Problem of Revelation in Thiemann, Ogden, and Ricoeur,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59/2 (Summer 1991): 281–308. [This essay argues that “God” cannot really be known in a general way but only in and through the particularities of a given faith. The essay reflects Barthian, post-liberal concerns and offers a counterpoint to the positions set forth by Ogden, Kaufman, and Gilkey.]

235

7 Special Revelation and Christian Faith This chapter begins by highlighting challenging issues relating to “reason” and “revelation.” This opening section focuses especially on Luther’s conviction that human beings can reasonably conclude that God is real, but they cannot say for certain who God is. God remains “hidden” to human beings in multiple ways. For human beings to know God requires God to reveal God. Christian faith trusts that this has happened in the history of ancient Israel and especially through the person of Jesus. Such trust involves risk, since there is no absolute proof for this faithful conclusion. The chapter thus continues by explaining what Christians mean by “special revelation.” This form of revelation centers upon the disclosure of God the Creator within the ancient Israelite and apostolic traditions, the manifestation of the gospel or good news about Jesus in the apostolic witness to him, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Because theologians have disagreed among themselves about the character of God’s special revelation, the chapter analyzes the ways in which this formula has been understood. The chapter then explores the three basic ways in which “believing” and “knowing” are related. The chapter concludes by briefly summarizing the basic forms of faith-statement.

The hidden God As we have already noted in Chapter 2 and Chapter 5, there have developed within the history of Christian thought two major positions with respect to the relation between the so-called “general” knowledge of God, which could be developed on the basis of natural reason, and the so-called “special” knowledge, which is given through God’s self-giving revelation. The first way maintains that the “special” knowledge supplements and fulfills the “general,” and that they are comparable to

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

and continuous with each other. This view was classically articulated in the theology of Aquinas and other medieval scholastic theologians, who held that the special revelation of God surpasses but does not contradict the general, natural knowledge of God that could be gained through philosophical reflection. In this way, “reason” and “revelation” are harmonious, and revelation merely adds truths to philosophy, knowledge that philosophical reason itself could never attain, such as the truth that God is triune or that the world is created with time. The second way of relating reason and revelation is marked by tension and conflict, if not outright rupture, between the two. When, for example, Tertullian raised the rhetorical question, “What indeed has Athens [i.e., Greek philosophy] to do with Jerusalem [i.e., divine revelation]?,” he argued that there is no concord between the two.1 In other words, natural philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with the specific acts of divine revelation in the history of Israel and in Jesus. For Tertullian there can be no accurate knowledge of God apart from God’s special revelation. This position is also quite similar to Barth’s complete rejection of any natural knowledge of God. While post-Humean and post-Kantian Protestant theology has generally been dismissive of rational attempts to demonstrate the reality of God, one needs to note that both Luther and Calvin concluded that human reason could indeed rightly conclude that God is. But reason could not surmise correctly who God is or what God’s ultimate attitude is toward individual humans and the rest of creation. This conclusion is not as far removed from the theological position of Aquinas as some might imagine, at least with respect to a natural knowledge of God, although these principal sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers agreed with the basic conclusion of Nominalism, namely, that the natural knowledge of God is utterly deficient and that the particular, special revelation of God is therefore all the more necessary. There are, after all, clues in both Luther and Calvin that they did not completely reject every form of metaphysical knowledge of God. Nevertheless, in the classical Reformers’ view, the various “natural” ways of pointing to the reality of God, whether in philosophical theology or even the modern cognitive sciences, could at best only indicate (but not prove) that God exists. They cannot give a full account of who God is or what God’s nature is or what this means for one’s understanding of the world, the place of human beings in it, and of one’s standing before God. This is also a conclusion one can come to after reading through the intricate dialectics in Hume’s Dialogues: human reason is impotent to uncover the nature of God. Yet if that is so, then one is still left with the existential and practical

1. Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics, 7, trans. Peter Holmes, ANF, 3.246.

237

238

Fundamental Theology

problem of living before the question of God in this strange, awesome, sometimes orderly, and frequently disturbing world. While the Protestant tradition is right to warn against the dangers of a strictly rational approach to the reality of God, since such an approach often ends up promoting an idol in place of God, or with a faulty idea of God that is the imaginary product of the philosopher’s own making, Protestant theology cannot dismiss every attempt to speak reasonably about the reality of God, at least if it wants to maintain continuity with the Pauline and Johannine statements about the natural knowledge of God that is available to all human beings. Thus, some continuity must be affirmed between the so-called “natural knowledge of God” and “the revealed knowledge of God.” The latter allows the former to be put in a new light. As the Anglican theologian Alister McGrath states, “A Christian natural theology is thus about seeing nature in a specific manner, which enables the truth, beauty, and goodness of God to be discerned, and which acknowledges nature as a legitimate, authorized, and limited pointer to the divine.”2 Against a strictly rational approach to God, however, one must underscore the prophetic and apostolic teaching that human beings on their own cannot know the real nature of God, which remains hidden to human beings and only knowable in God’s own self-giving, his unveiling or revelation, which is received by faith. While early Christian theologians acknowledged the importance of natural theology and even the importance of philosophical theology, they stressed that human beings are incapable of coming to a true knowledge of God on their own. The world of nature is too ambiguous in this regard. For them, God the Creator can only be known insofar as God acts to make the divine reality known. Revelation is thus something that God does as an act of God’s judgment and grace (i.e., God’s favor and mercy). Apart from the self-revelation of God and its reception by faith, God is “truly a God who hides himself ” (Isa. 45.13). Even in the revelation of God’s name to Moses (Exod. 3.12) there was the concealment of God’s reality, since God’s name “eludes every human

2. McGrath, The Open Secret, 5. McGrath acknowledges that natural theology cannot “prove” the reality of God on the basis of observing nature, but it can understand nature in such a way as to comprehend within a Christian framework what is observed in nature and to make sense of it on that basis. Nature is understood as an “open secret,” that is, “a publicly accessible entity, whose true meaning is known only from the standpoint of the Christian faith … The explanatory fecundity of Christianity is affirmed, in that it is seen to resonate with what is observed” (McGrath, The Open Secret, 16–17). While McGrath does not thereby mean to suggest that scientific investigation of nature, apart from any reference to Christian faith and theology, is misleading or unimportant, his position could easily be twisted by fundamentalist Christians who attack legitimate scientific knowledge of nature on the basis of their faith. They would need to be shown McGrath’s strong support for the empirical investigation of nature and for engaging the interface between the natural sciences and Christian faith.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

attempt to grasp him, possess him, and pin him down. God’s name will always remain a mystery, forever.”3 The claim of Christian teaching about God is that apart from faith in Jesus Christ, God is hidden or “naked,” a “strange, terrifying, indeterminate presence.”4 The “hidden God” is God concealed in the mystery and variability and arbitrariness of fate, in accidents, in the awesome power of nature, in the ambiguities of history, in the vision of the Western world’s great tragic literature, utterly inscrutable and incomprehensible in majesty. There are realities, such as birth and illness and death, about which human beings are not first asked if they would like to experience or to avoid them, but rather are simply plunged into them. Contrary to the notion of Karma, which attempts to rationalize about suffering on the basis of a supposed connection between one’s present life and the morality, good or bad, of one’s previous life, Christian theology teaches that there is only one biological existence that is given to each creature and that birth and death are the two boundaries that mark the fixity of that existence. Time is irreversible. These are realities over which human beings ultimately have no control, which determine them and shape them in all sorts of ways, realities that they must ultimately suffer and accept, perhaps in protest. At some point humans almost inevitably cry out with questions: “Why? Why here and now and not at another time and place or under a different set of circumstances? Why this body? These genes? That mother and father? This family? This nation and its history? Why this way today and that way tomorrow? Why must I deal with my fate, my “lot in life?”5 With one hand God gives life, and with the other life is taken away. As Job asked God, “Why have I become your target?” (Job 7.20). The Scriptures also point to this experience of divine uncertainty when they make reference to the almighty and holy God, whose ways are mysterious and hidden from the reasoning and control of human beings. The biblical prophets dislodge human 3. Oswald Bayer, “A Public Mystery,” Lutheran Quarterly 26 (Summer 2012): 133. 4. B. A. Gerrish, “To the Unknown God,” 133. 5. For profound Christian theological reflection on the realities of “fate,” see Werner Elert, The Christian Faith, trans. Martin Bertram and Walter Bouman (Columbus: Lutheran Theological Seminary, 1974), 60–8. The German term that is translated as “fate” is Schicksal. As Elert employed it, the term denotes something different from “fate” and “destiny,” in the usual sense of these two terms. Whereas “destiny” implies an inescapable future goal, “fate” conjures up Greek tragedy and the notion of fatalism, that is, a belief in a teleological concatenation of circumstance that hopelessly also cancels human freedom. For Elert Schicksal refers primarily to one’s “lot” in life and includes reference to finitude and location. Thus, Schicksal refers to all the factors that constitute human existence, over which human beings have no say, about which they are not asked, into which they find themselves “thrown”: for example, one’s body, family, sibling constellation, race, nation, era, etc., which together become an inescapable dynamic entity and power that delimit human freedom and with which human beings must come to terms and which can finally exercise power over them, as is most singularly evident in their death. Schicksal is literally that which is “sent to us,” was uns geschickt ist. It is this concept that is behind the term fate as it is used here.

239

240

Fundamental Theology

beings from being the center of the world. They starkly proclaim that God has “hidden his face” from them, and that God cannot be called forth from the divine hiddenness at their whim. In view of this divine hiddenness human beings can have no claim upon God. God is not beholden to them. Almighty God cannot be manipulated or controlled, as if God were “the Big Guy in the sky” and not the sovereign Lord and majestic Creator. According to the prophet Isaiah, God says: “I am the first and the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let them proclaim it, let them declare and set it forth before me” (Isa. 44.6-7 [RSV]). “I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is no one who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder it?” (Isa. 43.13 [RSV]). Everyone who questions after God “with reservations,” namely, from a position of a supposedly secure existence, or for the sake of establishing such a secure existence, acts in opposition against God. The words of God addressed to Job are ones that apply to everyone: Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 30.4-7 [RSV])

Luther thus spoke of the Deus absconditus, “the God who is hidden,” whose majesty and unfathomable power are concealed to all of creation. This is the God who forms light and creates darkness, who makes weal and creates woe (Isa. 45.7), who causes fear to arise in human hearts, who fills them with wonder and perhaps dread in the face of the Wholly Other, who suddenly comes upon human beings when they least expect it. How quickly life can change and thrust one into a kind of wilderness: a terrifying accident, a sudden illness, a mysterious death, a terrorist attack, or a terrible suffering. One is bewildered, in unfamiliar surroundings, out in the region of the Jabbok (Gen. 32), so to speak, wrestling with God, as Jacob did. At some point this “wrestling” is inevitable: “Why?” “Why now?” “How do we move on?” “What will happen next?” Like Job, people in such circumstances want to have answers, but so much remains an inscrutable mystery. The psalmist asks: “Why, O LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” (Ps. 10.1 [RSV]). “Why do you hide your face and forget our misery and oppression?” (Ps. 44.24). According to the Gospel of Mark, even Jesus died with a terrifying question on his lips, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (Mk 15.34). To slightly modify the statement of Pascal (“The heart has reasons that reason does not know”): God has God’s own reasons that human reason knows not. The counsels of the Lord are not human counsels, as God declares through Isaiah: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts, says the LORD” (Isa. 55.9 [RSV]). Because God is so different from human beings, humans can never reach God through their own

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

power or reason, or attain to God from their own resources. In view of the divine mystery, human beings remain in the dark, groping for some kind of light, some kind of understanding. Sometimes, to human eyes, the divine and the demonic seem identical, when God is absent and human life takes on the qualities of the tragic, the absurd, and the empty. The experience of the hidden God is also the experience of God in righteous anger and judgment, whose jealousy is absolute, whose ways are not our ways. The divine claim on each individual is total; it is the claim of the Creator on the creature. The fundamental command to the people of Israel was all-encompassing and overwhelming: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6.4-5 [RSV]). Jesus affirms this command and adds: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind … And you shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (Mt. 22.37-39). In reality, human beings do not love God with all their heart, all their soul, all their mind, nor do they love their neighbor as themselves. In the presence of almighty God, their consciences accuse them as having fallen short of what God demands. This experience of the alarmed conscience occurred to the great American physician-geneticist Francis Collins when he realized the existential, divine threat posed by the divine law within his own heart: Judging by the incredibly high standards of the Moral Law, one that I had to admit I was in the practice of regularly violating, this was a God who was holy and righteous. He would have to be the embodiment of goodness. He would have to hate evil. And there was no reason to suspect that this God would be kindly or indulgent. The gradual dawning of my realization of God’s plausible existence brought conflicted feelings: comfort at the breadth and depth of the existence of such a Mind, and yet profound dismay at the realization of my own imperfections when viewed in His light.6

This is similar to Isaiah’s sense of dread and dismay in the presence of the holy and righteous God: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” (Isa. 6.5). This was also Luther’s experience of Anfechtungen (i.e., spiritual crises, trials, and religious anxieties), John of the Cross’s experience of “the dark night,” Mother Teresa’s experiences of spiritual darkness and desolation, and Tillich’s experience of anxiety about the existential threat to one’s being and the fear of nonbeing.7 Then, too, one realizes that there is not always a one-to-one 6. Collins, The Language of God, 30. 7. For Luther’s experience of Anfechtungen, see James M. Kittelson and Hans H. Wiersma, Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 21–2; cf. John of the Cross, The Dark Night of the Soul, trans. David Lewis (London: Thomas Baker, 1908); Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) and Brian Kolodiejchuk, Come Be My Light: The Private Reflections of the Saint of Calcutta

241

242

Fundamental Theology

correspondence in this life between the rightness or wrongness of actions and just results. Innocent people often suffer an unjust fate, even as people who are guilty of terrible injustices (but perhaps experience no personal guilt whatsoever) often get away with their crimes and prosper along the way (cf. Ps. 73.3). There seems to be no immanent equivalence between one’s virtue and one’s lot in life, despite every rationalistic effort to explain otherwise. No wonder Kant thought it necessary to posit God for the sake of supporting a rational, moral faith! Humans experience “the hidden God” both as God’s numinous, tremendous presence (Otto) that confronts the sinner (how God is a consuming, devouring, raging fire that makes us feel we are made of dust and ashes) and as God’s absence (how God seems distant, cold, uncaring, mixed up with irrational fate and evil). In both ways this hidden God cannot be loved. Luther thought that in such situations God and the devil actually seem to be one and the same: “God indeed uses the devil to afflict and kill us. But the devil cannot do this if God does not want sin to be punished in this way.”8 God’s wrath against sinners is thus bound up with satan’s accusations against sinners. (The term “satan” means “accuser.”) The works of God and the devil can appear to ordinary human eyes to be one and the same, despite the fact that the devil remains an enemy of God. For Luther, this means that the devil is “God’s devil.”9 Such a conclusion is one that Scripture makes as well when, for example, what happened to Job is attributed to both satan and God (Job 2.3). Viewed in this way, the hidden God and the devil have a lot in common.10 This hidden God is the inscrutable God who works both weal and woe (blessing and pain) and whose thoughts are not human thoughts. The majesty of God is a “consuming fire” (Heb. 12.29). This incomprehensible God brings people to ruin, smites and hammers people, and seemingly pays no attention to their cries for mercy and justice. Moreover, time waits for no one; it always has more breath than the creature has. An honorable death? What if that too is not allowed for the individual? Amid intense suffering the biblical Job is led to utter despair: “After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth” (Job 3.1). Is that not to hate fate? “If I sin, what is that to you, you watcher of men?” (Job 7.20). That attitude reveals contempt both for one’s own lot in life and a final rejection of God the Creator.11 It is a common human experience, more common than those who sing the praises of God will often acknowledge.

(New York: Doubleday, 2007); Tillich, Systematic Theology, 2.59–78; and Tillich, The Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952). 8. Luther, Commentary on Psalm 90 (1541), LW1, 13.97. 9. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 165. 10. See Luther, Commentary on Psalm 51 (1532), LW1, 12.373-4. 11. Elert, The Christian Faith, 68.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

Luther understood this experience of the hiddenness of God as God taking on certain “masks” within creation. God uses human beings and other things as instruments behind and through which God accomplishes God’s own purposes. “All creatures are God’s larvae and mummery that he will let work with him and help in all sorts of creating, but that he otherwise can and does do without their help, so that we can cling only to his word.”12 While Luther rejected the notion that human beings are capable of cooperating with God in their salvation, he did think human beings cooperated with the Creator in the activities of daily, secular life. But even there, it is always God alone who is ultimately acting omnipotently and omnipresently to bring about God’s own purposes and ends. Luther held that “[God] is present everywhere, in death, in hell, in the midst of our foes, yes, also in their hearts. For he has created all things, and he also governs them, and they must do as he wills.”13 Luther and Protestantism in general hold that rational approaches to God are therefore problematic because they seek to know and understand God on their own terms. In this way God becomes an object whose parameters are determined by the one questing and questioning after the divine reality. The end result is that the questers/questioners tend to stand somewhat aloof from that which they are trying to demonstrate or prove, and from this theological perspective such rational inquiry and presumed knowledge are an affront to God’s total claim upon the individual as Creator to creature. That is why Bultmann labeled all “talk about God” as sin, idolatry, and atheism.14 In similar fashion, the Christian view maintains that every effort on the part of human beings to establish a proper relationship with God ends in failure, since it is grounded in the desire of the human being for self-perfection and self-security over against God. In contrast to every human approach to the reality of God, the proper, trusting relationship with God cannot be the result of the aspirations of human beings, either mentally or morally or religiously, but only the product of God’s own condescension (and “hiding”) in Jesus Christ, in his suffering, and in his death on the cross. For the apostles, Jesus is “the only name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4.12). Before we proceed to look more closely at the centrality of “faith” in the Christian tradition, we should very briefly summarize the various basic, contrasting ways in which God “hides” himself:

12. Martin Luther, Fastenpostille [Lenten Postil] (1525), WA, 17/2, 192, 28–31, as quoted by Bernard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, ed. and trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999), 213. 13. Martin Luther, Lectures on Jonah (1526), LW1, 19.68. 14. Bultmann, “What Does It Mean to Speak of God?,” 54–5 (emphasis added).

243

244

Fundamental Theology

(1) God is hidden in creation itself as “masks,” especially in suffering, human evil, and death, but also in relation to one’s ultimate standing before God with respect to the biblical teaching about “election” and “predestination” (cf. Rom. 8.32-33, 9.11, 11.1-10; Eph. 1.3-14; 2 Thess. 2.13-14; 1 Pet. 1.2, et passim).15 Apart from the proclamation of the gospel, what is God’s ultimate decision about my eternal “fate?” All of Job’s questions arise in this context, as do Luther’s reflections on Anfechtungen. (2) The eternal Son of God is hidden in Jesus of Nazareth, especially in his humiliation, suffering, and death on the cross. The hidden Son of God, incarnate in Jesus, is hated by people for forgiving and electing the wrong individuals with the wrong means (a death on a cross) and with the wrong promise (“forgiveness of sins by faith,” apart from obedience to God’s law). We will also address this issue more closely in Chapter 11. (3) God the Holy Spirit is also hidden, namely, in the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments, a topic we will also examine in Chapter 11.

The gospel and Christian faith For much classic Christian theology, the proper relationship to God takes one beyond a purely objective and rational approach to the perspective of faith, trust, love, and other dimensions of human existence that transcend the rational. While we have noted that Christian faith “seeks understanding,” that it pursues intellectual coherence and an accurate understanding of the divine, the personal faith of the one seeking is never “secure”; it is always “actively at risk.”16 Such faith involves wonder, humility, vulnerability, repentance, personal commitment, and the human responses of love, joy, and the other “fruit of the Spirit,” to use Paul’s language (Gal. 5.22-23). Unlike trivial or ultimately unimportant 15. A treatment of this tricky teaching is beyond the scope of this introductory text. However, one should note that Lutheran Christians discuss election/predestination within the context of divine grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, never apart from the proclamation that God desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2.4). Lutherans stress that Christians owe their salvation, from beginning to end, not to any worthiness or effort on their part, but solely to the Holy Spirit, who—by God’s grace in Christ, and working through the means of grace—“calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ” in the faith (Luther, The Small Catechism [The Creed], BC, 355). Whenever the doctrine of election is discussed apart from the concrete proclamation of the gospel and the summons to faith in the gospel, one usually ends up with Job’s questions and Luther’s Anfechtungen. 16. Christian Wiman, My Bright Abyss: Meditation of a Modern Believer (New York: Farrer, Strauss, Giroux, 2013), 75.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

questions that can be neatly set aside, questions of faith and existence, of life and death, of God and the complexity of reality, are “fraught with doubt, confusion, uncertainty, risk—and passion.”17 They are a matter of ultimate concern, namely, “that which determines our being or not-being.”18 These questions of faith and existence invite a “change of thinking,” dying to one’s sinful self, being “reborn” into the image and likeness of Christ, and entrusting one’s future entirely to God.19 In a letter that the German Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–45) wrote to his close friend Eberhard Bethge shortly before he was hanged by the Nazis in a concentration camp, Bonhoeffer underscored that one learns to have Christian faith “by living in the full this-worldliness of life”: If one has completely renounced making something of oneself … then one throws oneself completely into the arms of God, and this is what I call this-worldliness: living fully in the midst of life’s tasks, questions, successes and failures, experiences, and perplexities—then one takes seriously no longer one’s own sufferings but rather the suffering of God in the world. Then one stays awake with Christ in Gethsemane. And I think this is faith; this is metanoia. And this is how one becomes a human being, a Christian. (Cf. Jer. 45!) How should one become arrogant over successes or shaken by one’s failures when one shares in God’s suffering in the life of this world?20

It is important to underscore that in the Book of Job none of Job’s agonizing questions were really answered by God when God spoke out of the “whirlwind.” In fact, God (rather sarcastically) declared that the questions were erroneous and even presumptuous. In the end, Job’s proper response was a matter of knowing God in faith, of repenting of his sins, of encountering God’s mercy. After his encounter with the hidden God, Job still did not at all know why he suffered so. Yet he somehow seemed to have accepted the how of his suffering. He came to understand the Who behind his suffering. The one who knows the Who can bear with any how of suffering even though the person receives no rational answer and never learns the why of that suffering. But knowing the Who without knowing the why leaves room for faith.21 It brings security without necessarily having a satisfactory answer for the suffering.

17. Miller, God and Reason, 239. 18. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.14. 19. The Greek word for repentance (metanoia) literally means “a change of mind” (BDAG, 640). 20. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letter to Eberhard Bethge” (July 21, 1944), Letters and Papers from Prison, 486. This letter was written on the day after the failure of the most famous attempt by a circle of conspirators in the German Military Intelligence to kill Hitler. The letter was written while Bonhoeffer was in a Berlin prison, awaiting the outcome of his trial for his involvement in this same conspiracy. On the personal orders of Heinrich Himmler, Bonhoeffer was hanged on April 9, 1945. 21. For this line of theological reflection, see especially William E. Hulme, Dialogue in Despair: Pastoral Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968).

245

246

Fundamental Theology

So faith can only be the result of God’s grace (God’s favor or merciful presence), a grace that becomes all the more surprising and remarkable as it breaks through the experiences of God’s hiddenness, judgments, and absence. There is therefore surprise and gratefulness on the part of the faithful when God makes divine grace and the divine presence known once again. The same psalmist who lamented God’s absence could also note with thanksgiving when God did see trouble and grief and moved “to take it in hand” (Ps. 10.14). Ps. 22, which contains the words that Jesus spoke from the cross in his time of God-forsakenness, is immediately followed by a psalm that speaks of the Lord as “my shepherd who … restores my life” (Ps. 23.1-2). The speaker in the much-loved Twenty-Third Psalm proclaims a profound statement of faith: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for you are with me; your rod and your staff—they comfort me” (v. 4 [RSV]). But how can one have such faith in God without first knowing who God really is? The apostle Paul asked: “How are people to call upon One in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in One of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10.14). In other words, how are they supposed to give praise to God’s grace if they really do not know or understand God? Ironically, while most Christian theology holds that the general revelation of God is real, it fails to reveal God, as God wants to be known and trusted by human beings. Instead of providing human beings with a path to God, the general revelation of God actually reveals the inability of human beings to listen to God and their creative ability to devise their own convenient ways of reaching the divine. “Because human beings are in revolt against God, general revelation gives them just enough knowledge to befuddle them, confuse them, and lead them astray. This is not God’s fault, for he wants to reveal himself. It is our fault.”22 Even God’s general revelation, then, is regularly perverted by human beings. This perversion of God’s general revelation makes necessary the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The Christian claim is that the only way one can trust God is on the basis of God’s own special selfrevelation, a revelation that invites one to trust in God by faith in Jesus Christ. Faith comes from hearing the good news about Jesus. This faith alone provides the proper relationship of human beings to God. It is this faith that allows God’s promise in Christ to come to its completion in the life of believer.23 For Christians, the special revelation of God in the history and traditions of ancient Israel, and its culmination in Jesus of Nazareth and the gift of the Holy Spirit, does not merely confirm or complete the general revelation of God. Rather 22. George Forell, The Protestant Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962), 50. 23. Of course, faith is present among the people of the old covenant, too. The OT is full of stories about faith, about the need for keeping faith, about faith in God’s covenantal faithfulness. For an excellent overview of nature of faith, in both the OT and the NT, see Hans-Jürgen Hermisson and Eduard Lohse, Faith, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981).

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

it “repeatedly challenges, corrects, and transforms all of our earlier knowledge of God, from whatever source,” as well as underscores whatever is good and true in it.24 While most Christians acknowledge that God can be known, at least in part, beyond God’s revelation in ancient Israel, in Jesus of Nazareth, and in the gift of the Holy Spirit, Christian faith centers on Jesus as the Christ. As such, this faith grows from the historic communities and traditions that led to the coming of Christ, that developed during and after his public ministry, and then further developed as a result of the outpouring of the Spirit. Thus, for Christian faith and theology, the one God, the Creator of all things, has been revealed freely and progressively in many ways, especially in the divine call and promise of blessing to Abram (Gen. 12.1-3), but also in these other ways:







(1) the theophanies (“divine manifestations”) to the ancestors and the ancient Israelites (e.g., Gen. 18.1-15, 26.2-5, 26.24, 28.13-17, 32.22-32; Exod. 13.2122, 16.10, 19.9-25, 24.15-18, 33.10-23, 40.34-38; Lev. 9.23; Num. 12.5-9, 14.10, 20.6; Job 38, et passim); (2) the revelation of God’s name to Moses (YHWH = “I am who I am” or “I will be what I will be,” Exod. 3.14, cf. Exod. 34.5-9); (3) the giving of the law to those Israelites liberated from slavery (Exod.-Deut.); (4) the promise of an eternal kingdom to David (2 Sam. 7.16); (5) the preaching and symbolic actions of the biblical prophets, their visions (e.g., Isa. 6), and predictions about the future; (6) in the “still small voice” that spoke to the prophet Elijah, which reminded him that God will not judge with the hurricane, earthquake, or wildfire (cf. 1 Kings 19.11-18); (7) in the song of the suffering servant (Isa. 53), which prefigures Jesus; (8) in the incarnation of the Word of God (the Logos) in the person of Jesus, who is confessed to be the eternal Son of God, God’s final word to all people (Mt. 1.1; Mk 1.1; Heb. 1.1-4); (9) in the transfiguration of Jesus, whose face shone like the sun (Mk 9.2-8; par.); (10) in the resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples and later to Paul (1 Cor. 15.1-11; Mk 16.1-8; par.); (11) and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

In the biblical tradition, “revelation” thus takes place not only through signs, symbols, poetic images, and specific people, but also through the unveiling of a deeper or transcendent dimension of an event or a set of circumstances, and through theophanies that are accompanied by God’s direct speaking. (In the biblical tradition “theophany” may not be the right term to describe those “appearances” of God since 24. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 33.

247

248

Fundamental Theology

God remains hidden in the event. The focus is on the “speaking” of the transcendent God, not on the manifestation of God.) In the Scriptures of the OT and NT, there is a multiplicity of witnesses to God’s actions in history, which together bear witness to a kind of historical unfolding of the divine character. When one reads the Bible, one encounters this God of history or, better, this God who acts in history and encounters us there. God meets us in the biblical stories about God’s dealings with his chosen people Israel, not only stories that begin with the calling of Abram (Gen. 12.1-3), who is given the new name of “Abraham” (“father of a multitude”), but also stories about other people in this “family history,” for example, Moses, David, the prophets, and so on. Indeed, these actions of the God of Israel portray God very differently from how God has been understood in many philosophical systems, especially in those of Platonism, where “the divine” or “the highest god” (“the Good,” “the One”) is constant, unchanging, and ultimately uninvolved in human affairs. In the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, God is personal and relational, not an impersonal concept or force. Moreover, the God of Israel acts in history. This God does “mighty deeds,” makes choices, makes promises, and fulfills them. In these Scriptures, God is even depicted as having humanlike emotions, for example, jealousy, anger, steadfastness, faithfulness, love—qualities that differ far from most philosophical descriptions of God. When God revealed his name to Moses, and passed him by, God said to him: “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation” (Exod. 34.6-7). The good news here is that God’s mercy and love are greater and more abundant than God’s judgment and wrath. Christians maintain that the clearest and fullest understanding of God available to human beings comes from the revelation of the God of Israel in the good news about Jesus. For Christians, Jesus is the fulfillment of the foundational biblical promise to Abram—that through Abram and his family all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12.3). For Christians, this divine “blessing” is the forgiveness of our sins, our salvation from all that separates us from God, and ultimately the gift of eternal life with God. The basic claim of the apostolic writings in the NT is that Jesus, a descendant of Abraham and David, is the full revelation of God’s love and mercy for sinful humankind, that his self-giving life, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection from the dead have brought eternal life to light for mortal humankind, and that the understanding of this revelation has itself been revealed to Jesus’ followers by God’s Spirit. Jesus has thus inaugurated a new creation in the face of the old one marked by sin, death, and evil. Christians believe that “God was in Christ reconciling the cosmos to God, not counting people’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5.19). An early sermon recorded in the NT nicely summarizes this understanding of the significance of Jesus:

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have gazed upon and our hands have touched, concerning the word of life— and the life has appeared, and we have seen it, and bear witness to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and appeared to us. (1 Jn 1.1-2)

According to the Gospel of Matthew, “all things have been handed over” to Jesus by his “Father” (Mt. 28.18). “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt. 11.27; cf. Lk. 10.22). According to the apostle Paul, the message about Jesus and his death on the cross is a special kind of wisdom, imparted by God’s Spirit: For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. (1 Cor. 2.10-12)

According to the biblical witness of the prophets and the apostles, therefore the special revelation of God is not a divine showering of pertinent new information or eternal, abstract truths “from above,” as if divine revelation were merely a matter of disseminating divine ideas or propositional statements in the Bible. Nor is it the direct unveiling of God in the fullness of God’s glory. Rather, the special revelation of God is a self-giving of God that has taken place in particular spaces and times, in the muck and mire of history itself. Indeed, as indicated earlier, the irony of God’s special revelation is that it entails a further kind of divine hiddenness in the specific historic events of ancient Israel, in the words and actions of the biblical prophets, and ultimately in the historic event of Jesus himself, especially his death on the cross. God is not directly observable in any of these events or actions. God remains hidden within them. God’s presence in them is only disclosed to faith, which trusts the prophetic and apostolic word that accompanies and interprets these events as God’s actions in history. Moreover, the revelation of God’s hiddenness in Jesus involves some specific content. As the Apostles’ Creed states, Jesus “was crucified under Pontius Pilate,” a rather insignificant Roman official, whom Christians nonetheless specifically remember and cite in their statements of faith as a way of pinpointing Jesus in history, and of insisting that he was himself a flesh-and-blood individual who lived in a certain time and place. Thus, time and history are themselves significant for understanding the divine self-giving in God’s special revelation, according to Christian teaching. The implication of this “entry into history” is profound. God has created time and space, and yet God has freely and lovingly entered into that finite time and space through God’s eternal Word (the Logos), God’s eternal Son, that has ultimately become incarnate in Jesus. After setting the Word in a cosmic setting, the grand opening of the Gospel of John declares: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt

249

250

Fundamental Theology

among us … No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” (Jn 1.14, 18). And the Epistle of Hebrews states: In many and various ways long ago, God spoke to our forebears by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also made the world order. Being the radiance of God’s glory and the full expression of God’s being, he sustains all things by his powerful word. (Heb. 1.1-3)

In view of these testimonies, Jesus is not a mere teacher about God, as if he were on the same level as a divine messenger (an angel) or a human prophet. In a basic way he was understood by the early witnesses to his life and actions to have incarnated the very being of God in the world and to have manifested that being for what it truly is: “God was revealed in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by the angels, proclaimed among the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3.16). The divine plan or “mystery” became manifest in the flesh of Jesus (Rom. 16.25; Col. 1.26; Eph. 3.9), and Jesus says in the Gospel of John: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14.7). Is it any wonder that the biblical Gospels present religious leaders who accuse Jesus of committing blasphemy and of making claims that no mere human being should ever make? According to this apostolic witness, then, the Word of God has entered human history and has revealed himself in the forgiveness of sins as the Giver and Lord of life and salvation. The self-revelation of God in Jesus discloses the self-giving of God for human beings, their salvation, and the salvation of the world. This divine self-disclosure reveals to those who receive it in faith God’s true character, nature, attributes, and intention toward them. The message is not a set of logical propositions or truth-statements to be critically examined, but rather a proclamation that invites a response, either rejection or acceptance. Revelation is not really mere factual knowledge, although Christians will insist that the self-giving of God in history has truly occurred; instead, the purpose of the self-giving of God is to invite a trusting response (“faith”) from the one who hears the message. Through this divine encounter, and by so trusting the message about God in Christ that is conveyed within this encounter, one’s understanding of God, oneself, others, and the world changes. Everything is now viewed in a new light, in the light of God’s love and grace that are revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. The short-hand term that Christians use to label this message of salvation in and through Jesus is the word gospel, based on an old English word that means “good message” or “good report.”25 Christians call each of the first four books in the NT a “Gospel” (the four canonical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) because they tell of “the good news” that has come through Jesus. Mark’s Gospel begins with these words: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk 1.1). 25. See BDAG, 402–3; TDNT, 2.721.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

Jesus himself is depicted there as announcing “the good news of God,” namely, that “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (Mk 1.14-15). Luke’s Gospel, which begins very differently from Mark’s, contains a message of an angel to shepherds who were tending their sheep near Bethlehem, where Luke indicates Jesus was born. On that occasion the angel announces: “Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (Lk. 2.10-11). Much later, when Jesus began to proclaim the kingdom of God, he quoted from the OT prophet Isaiah to interpret his own ministry: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberation to the captives and the restoration of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Lk. 4.18-19; cf. Isa. 61.1-2). So prior to the written Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, there was an oral gospel that was proclaimed by Jesus himself. Whereas for Jesus the gospel or good news is all about the coming kingdom of God, the apostle Paul, who wrote a letter to some Christians in the ancient city of Corinth more than two decades after the death of Jesus (c. AD 53–55), identified the gospel with the death and resurrection of Jesus: Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which you also stand, through which you also are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve [apostles]. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor. 15.1-8)

According to Paul, the gospel is the good message about the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Elsewhere, in another letter he wrote later in his life, Paul calls this gospel “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith’ ” (Rom. 1.15-17). This passage would have repercussions throughout the history of the Christian church, but especially at the time of the Protestant Reformation, since Luther interpreted these verses as the key to the teaching that salvation is received by human beings “by faith alone” (sola fide). What needs to be underscored here is that for Paul (and Luther), faith is trusting in Jesus Christ, which entails a personal commitment to Christ (cf. Gal. 2.19-21; Phil. 3.3-14) with concrete consequences for

251

252

Fundamental Theology

the living of one’s life. Such trusting in Christ, such believing in him, is linked to the confidence in God that Jesus himself summoned his disciples to have. Within the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, the gospel, strictly speaking, is “nothing else than a proclamation of comfort and a joyous message which does not rebuke nor terrify but comforts consciences against the terror of the law, directs them solely to Christ’s merit, and lifts them up again through the delightful proclamation of the grace and favor of God, won through Christ’s merit,” as one of the Lutheran Church’s foundational confessions puts it.26 Thus, the gospel is always a message about the cross and suffering of Jesus the Messiah. It is a message that conveys the forgiveness of people’s sins. Its goal is to provide consolation to troubled consciences. For this reason, the gospel message, for it to be truly good news, must include the words “for you.” The gospel is directed in a very specific way to each individual and that person’s circumstances: “Christ died for you to forgive you your sins.” “Christ has reconciled you to God.” Likewise, though the written Scriptures can be called “the word of God,” for the message to be heard as a message for oneself, it is best conveyed through oral proclamation that has the quality of being “the living voice of the gospel.” In short, the gospel proclaims God’s sovereign act in Jesus to be gracious and merciful to sinners not only in general, but also for each individual person in particular The gospel is not a new law or demand, but a divine gift of forgiveness, life, and salvation. For Luther especially, the gospel is sharply different from the divine law, just as it is distinct from the NT teaching about “love.” The gospel should not be made into a new divine law, nor do Protestants think that for Christian faith to be “faith” it must be “formed by love,” that is, that it “receives its special character and worth from the love that makes it perfect. And this, Luther says, is in effect to transfer justification from faith to love.”27 For if love is commanded and necessary for salvation, it can turn into a new form of law and unrelenting demand. Protestants therefore resist this identification between faith and love, even if they also teach that faith is to be active in love. They insist that the gospel remain pure promise, pure gift, distinct from exhortations to love others and to obey the demands of the law. Protestant Christians thus seek to avoid confusing faith and love, the gospel and the law, for confusing these teachings “obscures the merit of Christ and robs troubled consciences of the comfort that they otherwise have in the holy gospel when it is preached clearly and purely. With the help of this distinction [between the law and the gospel] these consciences can sustain themselves in their greatest spiritual struggles against the terror of the law.”28 This distinction between the law and the gospel makes clear that salvation is entirely an unconditional gift of God’s mercy and favor for the sake of Jesus Christ, and not some new set of demands. 26. The Formula of Concord (Epitome), V, BC, 501. 27. Brian Gerrish, Saving and Secular Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 2. 28. The Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration), V, BC, 581.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

Because Protestants tend to stress that the gospel promise can only be received by faith, we should examine this concept a little more closely, following the key findings of biblical scholars Artur Weiser and Rudolf Bultmann in their classic dictionary entry on this Greek term and its cognates.29 In the OT, faith is always the positive human response and attitude to God’s primary action, especially his promises and mighty deeds. The richness of this human response of faith in God is especially evident in the Psalms. Throughout the OT, people express their faith in God in terms of both fearing God (cf., e.g., Gen. 20.11, 22.12; Isa. 8.13, 11.2; Ps. 19.9, 111.10, etc.) and trusting in God. God’s own steadfastness and faithfulness, that which makes God God, including the actualization of his word and eternal plan, is the ground or basis for the human response of faith toward God. This faith is then active in the individual’s loving obedience toward God. Such faith in God’s promises is expressed with the Hebrew word Amen (= “let it be so,” “truly”), a term that Christians also use at the end of their prayers to express their confidence in God.30 In a certain sense, faith in God is “to say Amen to God.”31 In the OT, the attitude of faith is thus understood to be a total commitment of the whole person to God, including one’s conduct and inner life. Rejected are all false gods and the fear of all human power and might, which are transitory. The attitude of faith seeks refuge or shelter solely in the one, true God, the Creator of heaven and earth (cf., e.g., Isa. 30.2; Ps. 36.8). Often in the OT the attitude of faith is oriented toward the future. It takes the posture of hopeful, patient waiting, for example, patiently waiting for divine help in time of need or distress, or of confidently expecting that God hears one’s prayers. Thus, “hoping in God” is yet another way in which the OT describes the concept of faith. Isaiah proclaims: “I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him” (Isa. 8.17); “those who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint” (Isa. 40.31). The prophetic word summons weary souls back from the edge of despair “by referring them precisely to

29. See Artur Weiser and Rudolf Bultmann, “πιστεύω, πίστις” [pisteuō, pistis], TDNT, 6.174–228. Weiser wrote the section on the OT, while Bultmann wrote the sections on Judaism and the NT. The first term is the verbal form, “to trust,” “to believe,” “to put faith in,” while the second is the noun form, “confidence,” “trust,” “conviction,” but also “faithfulness.” Cf. BDAG, 816–21. For an excellent overview of the biblical teaching about “faith,” see Hermisson and Lohse, Faith, 7–158. 30. BDAG, 53. Cf. Alfred Jepsen, “āman,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. John T. Willis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 1.320–3. In this form, this Hebrew word was often used in connection with an ascription of praise to God. Other Hebrew words that are based on the same root indicate that God is “faithful,” his promises are “reliable,” he acts in “faithfulness” in keeping with his character, and his word is “sure” (cf., e.g., Ps. 89), and therefore humans are called to have “confidence” in God. 31. Weiser, “πιστεύω, πίστις,” TDNT, 6.187.

253

254

Fundamental Theology

this hidden God,” to his unsearchable wisdom and unwavering strength, which God gives to those who are without strength.32 God himself is the one who gives people the strength to have such faith in God, “which is inwardly master over even the most serious afflictions in this life, including death itself, because its roots are in another, transcendent world.”33 In the NT, faith is the leading term for the human relationship to God. Following the OT understanding, faith often means to believe and trust God’s word, to trust what God says in the Scriptures, to believe and trust Jesus’ word, to trust and accept the proclamation of the apostles. As in the OT, faith signifies confidence in God’s miraculous help, his mighty power, and it looks forward in hope to the fulfillment of his promises.34 Such trust in God is very closely related to hoping in God. Indeed, faith in God’s promise is also described as hoping in God, who is hidden. In other words, faith is “directed to the invisible,” toward a heavenly reality that cannot be perceived by the senses but can only be believed in faith (cf. Heb. 11; 1 Pet. 1.21).35 “Hence in order that there may be room for faith, it is necessary that everything which is believed should be hidden.”36 Hence the importance of the apostolic kerygma (proclamation) that summons hearers to believe in that which is proclaimed. Such faith in the gospel proclamation recognizes and appropriates for oneself God’s salvific work in his Son Jesus Christ, as announced in the apostolic message (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3-11). Faith accepts the gospel promise as proclaimed by the apostles: “Christ died for you; he was raised to reconcile you to God.” Faith trusts that the “you” in this message means “me.” “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved” (Rom. 10.9-10). So proclamation and faith always go together.37 The person who accepts the apostolic proclamation in faith recognizes thereby that this Jesus, the events of his life, death, and resurrection took place as the history of God’s salvation for the world. Faith acknowledges Jesus to be the Savior and Lord of all creation. Like the OT, the NT also teaches that faith entails “faithfulness” and “obedience” to God, that is, obedience to the way of salvation opened up in Christ. Such faith in Christ orients the entire life of the person to God’s act of salvation in Christ and to the future that Christ has promised and has begun through his death and resurrection.

32. Ibid., 6.195. 33. Ibid. 34. Bultmann, “πιστεύω, πίστις,” TDNT, 6.206. 35. Ibid., 6.207. 36. Luther, The Bondage of the Will (1525), LW1, 62. 37. Bultmann, “πιστεύω, πίστις,” TDNT, 6.211.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

Special revelation in Christian theology Despite the simplicity of this basic gospel message, the prophetic and apostolic witness to God’s revelation is rich in form and content. Not only is the witness to God’s self-giving something that is conditioned by human speech (e.g., the languages of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), historic cultures, and ambiguous historical events, but it involves a number of different literary forms and genres, each of which must be engaged carefully for the sake of theological understanding. Included within that historical witness are figures, metaphors, and symbols that can appear initially opaque and uncertain. As will be discussed further in Chapter 9, the challenge of uncovering theological understanding within the special divine revelation—relating the historic meaning(s) to contemporary circumstances—can be met only with the assistance of basic principles of interpretation (hermeneutics). In the history of the Christian church the idea of special revelation has received significant attention only since the sixteenth century, when both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians sought to defend their respective confessional positions on the basis of their understanding of the Bible as the deposit of divine revelation. Since the sixteenth century, others have set forth the idea of special, divine, biblical revelation over against perceived theological errors, notably the Deism prevalent in the eighteenth century, and other more modern errors, such as naturalism, positivism, and materialistic atheism. While all contemporary Christian theologians agree on the centrality of divine revelation for faith and theology, they disagree among themselves regarding the nature of revelation. Since the special self-revelation of God in history is rich and complex, given the multiplicity of prophetic and apostolic witnesses, their historical circumstances, and their use of language, it is not surprising that differing types of understanding divine revelation would emerge in the history of Christian theology. Avery Dulles (1918–2008), an important Roman Catholic theologian, has helpfully categorized some of these basic models of understanding revelation into five different types, and he has further identified their respective strengths and weaknesses.38 One may list them as follows:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Revelation as propositional truth; Revelation as the biblical witness to divine acts in history; Revelation as divine address in the present moment of proclamation; Revelation as interior experience of God’s grace or communion with God; and Revelation as imaginative vision.

38. Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation, rev. edn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985).

255

256

Fundamental Theology

We shall take a look at each of these five types and summarize their respective strengths and weaknesses in light of Dulles’s own analysis. (1) Revelation as propositional truth. The first type of understanding divine revelation stresses that revelation is to be found in clear propositional statements that can be drawn from the divinely inspired Bible and defined by church leaders. This model views divine revelation as “inspired communication” from God, that is, as a kind of knowledge that can only be given by God, which people then collect and organize into the official teachings of a church body. While Roman Catholic scholastics and Protestant fundamentalists disagree about the specific content of divine revelation, both tend toward the understanding of revelation’s essence as a set of assertions. They insist that revelation comes in the form of words that have propositional content. Those who work with this model define faith as intellectual assent to the propositional content of revelation, as that content is officially adopted and promulgated within a given church body. Some conservative Protestant church bodies, which give lip service to the authority of the divinely inspired and inerrant Bible, allow church leaders (e.g., a church body’s commission on theology and its convention decisions and resolutions) to define the propositional content of divine revelation. Many theologians, including Origen in the third century, Johann Gerhard in the seventeenth century, and conservative Protestants today, have thus restricted divine revelation to statements of propositional content (often highly selective) that is drawn from the inspired biblical writings. If a strength of this type of understanding is its emphasis upon clear doctrinal teaching, as drawn from the Bible and articulated in the context of the church, a key weakness is its assumption that the real significance of the verbally inspired Bible, despite its numerous narrative and literary forms, is mainly to set forth a collection of straightforward doctrinal propositions that need only to be organized by theologians and defined as divine revelation through a church’s official teachers, its commission on theology, or its conventions, councils, and official assemblies. This model of revelation ends up intellectualizing the concept of faith and reframing it in terms of the mental action of assenting to propositional, often abstract statements. To be sure, against those who deny that divine revelation involves any propositional content, one must affirm with Dulles that if “we had no confidence in the propositional teaching of the Bible, we could hardly put our trust in the persons or events of biblical history, or even in the God to whom the Bible bears witness.”39 Yet, one must also acknowledge that not every statement in the Bible, especially as literally taken, expresses a revealed truth of God. If Holy Scripture is seen as primarily a collection of assertions or facts, as soon as one detects even minor errors in the Bible, such as errors of cosmology or history, this model of revelation suffers. 39. Dulles, Models of Revelation, 205. See also the same point that is made by Stephen T. Davis, OHPT, 35.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

This same conclusion can be made about a supposed infallible teaching authority, as in Roman Catholicism or some Protestant churches, whose commission on theology typically functions as a Protestant or other church body’s magisterium (its authoritative teachers). Missing here is the historical-critical task of theology that always seeks to investigate anew the sources of divine revelation, including its cognitive content (which it surely has), and to test contemporary theological understandings against that normative content in the prophetic and apostolic witness to God. But most importantly: if special revelation entails the revelation of God himself rather than merely truths about God, then the faith that revelation evokes must consist primarily of trust rather than intellectual assent. If God has revealed himself through his mighty deeds in history, then faith is relying on the salvific significance of these events. If the revelation of the gospel is primarily the offer of a promise, then faith is trusting the promise. (2) Revelation as the biblical witness to divine acts in history. A second type of understanding revelation stresses that the self-manifestation of God has occurred through specific acts in history, to which the Bible and church teaching bear witness. While the first type maintains this basic position as well, the second stresses that revelation is God’s own self-disclosure, which only later leads to the articulation of statements and doctrines about God. A number of theologians have held this type of understanding, including the nineteenth-century theologian Johannes von Hofmann (the so-called “father of salvation history”) and the twentieth-century theologians Oscar Cullmann (1902–99), Edmund Schlink, H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962), and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Despite their great differences, these theologians all insist that divine revelation is not a collection of infallible teachings about God, but rather the historic witness within the Scriptures to God’s acts of salvation in history. This type of understanding views divine revelation as “progressive,” since God discloses who God is over time and not all at once. Here divine revelation consists of a series of historical events in which God condescended to people and gradually revealed himself over time. These mighty acts of God within history began with the call of Abram and led eventually to the coming of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit. It will then ultimately lead to the culmination of universal history at the end of time. The aim of God’s actions in history, which the prophets announce, is “the knowledge of his deity,” and therefore of God’s nature.40 The revelation of God is neither in the form of a book nor in mere propositional statements of teaching, but God himself in his historical self-attestation. Whereas Hofmann and others, such as Gerhard Ebeling, have thought that history needed the prophetic and apostolic word to interpret certain events as “God’s history,” and that the acts of God include God’s addressing human beings directly and 40. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.238–9.

257

258

Fundamental Theology

indirectly, Pannenberg insisted that the events of history are self-interpreting and need no additional prophetic revelation. He also stressed, against the views of Barth and Bultmann and those significantly influenced by them (e.g., Eberhard Jüngel [1934–2021]), that God’s self-revelation is always indirect, at least until the final event of history at its “end,” and that divine revelation is more than God’s word of address to human beings. “God’s revelation in Jesus Christ is indeed only an anticipation of the final event, which will be the actual revelatory event. And yet, we have the wellfounded confidence that the final event will not bring anything decisively new that was not already anticipated in the resurrection of Jesus.”41 Pannenberg restated this position in his systematic presentation of Christian theology: Because the lordship of the one God is to be thought of as encompassing all occurrence, and world occurrence can be seen as a whole only in the light of its end, the deity of God in his rule over the world is manifest in Jesus only on the condition that in him the eschaton [end] of history is proleptically present. The reshaping of the idealistic view of universal history by relating it to biblical eschatology, to the end of history as the condition of its totality, made it possible to abandon the restriction of the historical self-demonstration of God to exceptional miraculous events. In the same way it became possible to overcome the antithesis between revelation as manifestation and a supplementary inspiration insofar as the dawning of eschatological reality in the coming and work of Jesus implies that the expectation of the final revelation of the deity of God to the whole world that is bound up with the eschatological future of history is already fulfilled in Jesus, although only by way of anticipation.42

Like Hofmann, Pannenberg maintained that the greatest act of God in history, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, is the revelation of the ultimate end or purpose of universal history in the midst of history, but it will only be fully comprehended “at the close of history.”43 The resurrection of Jesus from the dead marks the end of God’s revelation to human beings, as nothing more needs to take place, save the actual end of history that Christ’s resurrection anticipated. In the end, it will become apparent to all (hence “universal” history) that Jesus indeed is Lord over life and death. According to Pannenberg, the end of history fully reveals God’s essence, whereas all revelations of God prior to this end must remain indirect and incomplete. One strength of this type of understanding of revelation is the recognition that divine revelation is historical in character. Those who hold this view understand that not everything within the Bible or church traditions has the same theological weight. 41. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Insight and Faith,” in Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 2, trans. George H. Kelm (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1971), 44. 42. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.229. 43. Pannenberg, “Dogmatic Theses on the Doctrine of Revelation,” 131. For further comparison between Hofmann’s understanding of “salvation history” and Pannenberg’s understanding of “revelation as history,” see Becker, The Self-giving God and Salvation History, 22–5, 220–32, 244–57.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

Indeed, they acknowledge that some earlier features contained within the biblical revelation are now outdated, due to later historical-theological developments. For example, polygamy, slavery, and the subordination of women to men may have been acceptable elements within the earlier biblical revelation, but in light of the coming of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit, the gospel has eventually transformed our understanding of these matters so that the earlier social institutions or practices may be criticized and rejected. Despite this important stress on the historical character of divine revelation, the idea that revelation is essentially a witness to divine acts does have difficulty acknowledging the verbal character of God’s address to human beings through prophets and apostles in their historical circumstances. Contrary to Pannenberg’s position, the divine word of address and the divine action to accomplish what the word promises are not so easily distinguished in the biblical materials. Hofmann and Ebeling were correct to hold the position that history is never self-interpreting. Historic events always require God’s prophetic and apostolic word to interpret their deepest meanings. In this sense the prophetic and apostolic word is also revelatory speech. In both the OT theophanies and in the manifestation of God through Jesus, there is a distinct disclosure of the nature of God. This disclosure was not merely a matter of action; it also involved words that reveal both the Son for who he is and the Father for who he is. Nor is this divine self-disclosure a single “all-embracing event of selfrevelation” at “the close of history.” Furthermore, the word of God is not all of a piece or a single type. It is instead a twofold revelation of law and gospel in the past, present, and future. (This distinction between God’s law and gospel is particularly important for Lutheran Christians and will be discussed further in subsequent chapters.) While Christians believe that the word of the Lord came to the Hebrew prophets and led them to say what they said, the incarnate Word, Jesus, was sent from the Father and given a commandment about “what to say and what to speak … What I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me” (Jn 12.49-50). “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” (Jn 1.18). In light of these passages, it is clear that the incarnate Word directly makes God known through both words and actions, each conditioning the other. Nor will it do to divorce God as author of the word from “the content of the word,” as Pannenberg would have it.44 To be sure, the fullest knowledge of God will only be given in the manifestation of God’s glory “on the last day,” but it is incorrect to assert that the knowledge of God will only occur at the end of the sequence of revelatory events. If this view were correct, then divine revelation has not (yet) really occurred in history, God has not really or fully spoken a word that is self-disclosing through the prophets and the apostles, the divine wrath is not being revealed here and now 44. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.243.

259

260

Fundamental Theology

(see Rom. 1.18), and the Son of God has not made and is not now making God known as merciful. Contrary to Pannenberg’s position, in which the divine self-disclosure must still be coming in the future, and will only be fully present at “the close” of history, divine revelation involves both historical event and divine address through prophets and apostles.45 The address is as essential as the event, since the address interprets the historical events as the acts of God and announces God’s judgment and grace on the basis of them. Apart from the address, the historical event referred to by the address is too ambiguous to be understood. The divine word is therefore necessary to interpret the divine event, and that word speaks fully and completely in the present as well as the past. It now addresses contemporary people in living, active words of divine judgment and grace. (3) Revelation as divine address in the present moment of proclamation. The third type or way of understanding revelation stresses the contemporary dimension of divine address. God’s self-revelation occurs fully now, in the present, when God addresses people with the divine word. God is known in this address, which confronts people with the message about the incarnate Word. In this way of interpreting special revelation, divine revelation is always God’s word of judgment and grace to present human beings, which invites their faithful and obedient response. According to theologians who might be said to hold this view—such as Kierkegaard, Barth, Bultmann, and, more recently, Ebeling and Jüngel—nothing that is created or conditioned by human beings, including the Bible and the church, can be directly identified with divine revelation. God is absolutely and qualitatively different from human beings. Even in God’s self-revelation, God is immediately present but not directly discernible. God always uses a finite means that effectively “hides” God’s presence behind it. For Barth, the word of God has a threefold form: Christian proclamation of Christ, the Scripture’s witness to Christ, and the incarnate Christ himself. But Christ alone is the true revelation of God and most properly “the Word of God.”46 The other two forms only “become” the word of God when they properly bear witness to Christ.47 In the case of Bultmann, Christian eschatology (the teaching about “final things”) is not about the temporal end of history, which he maintains is mythological, but about the present moment of decision for or against faith in the word about Jesus that is proclaimed to contemporary people. Revelation occurs in that ever-present and urgent moment of preaching and in one’s faithful response to the preaching. All of the so-called “dialectical” theologians (especially Barth, Bultmann, and Tillich), despite their significant differences, insist that Christian faith is not 45. Cf. Pannenberg, “Dogmatic Theses on the Doctrine of Revelation” (Theses 1 and 2), 125–35. 46. Barth, CD, 1/1.88–124. 47. Ibid., 1/1.117.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

dependent upon the scholarly results of historical-critical investigation of the Bible. Yet in practice such an insistence actually widens the gap between “the Christ of faith” (which could turn out to be an illusion) and “the Jesus of history.” To compare Bultmann’s historical-critical conclusions about Jesus with what he proclaimed about the word is to find a real disconnect between “history” and “faith.” The faith Bultmann proclaimed had far more content than the minimal details he thought could be asserted about the historical Jesus. (We will return to this matter in Chapter 10.) There is also a theological problem with seeing revelation as primarily proclamation in the present moment. While Barth and Bultmann stressed that the Bible is not strictly the word of God, since it is thoroughly conditioned by human beings, it can certainly become God’s word of address when it bears faithful witness to Christ, the eternal Word of God. Likewise, while the church is committed to proclaiming the gospel of Christ faithfully, the teaching or preaching of the church (any church) per se, at a particularly time, cannot be identified with divine revelation either. It must always be critically examined against the word of God as it is testified to by the prophets and the apostles. But if, as especially Barth insisted, human beings are by nature incapable of receiving the word of God, is divine revelation really possible? If the Bible is understood as a thoroughly humanly conditioned set of documents, how does it “become” the word of God that alone serves as judge and norm for the church’s teaching and preaching and all things human? More significantly, divine revelation includes an additional revelation of God beyond the witness to Christ, since Paul indicates that “the wrath of God” is also being revealed by God, apart from Christ. A further problem, underscored by Pannenberg and his circle, is that this dialectical model is really uninterested in divine revelation in history (e.g., the acts and words of ancient Israel or the early church), since for Barth and Bultmann revelation occurs only in the present proclamation of the word that bears witness to the Word of God who is Christ.48 The drama of salvation is obscured, and the eschatological future 48. Biblical scholar James Barr (1924–2006) criticized all attempts to link “revelation” and “history” in Christian theology. He stressed that the narratives within the OT cannot properly be described as “history” and are better understood in the category of “story.” See James Barr, “Revelation through History in the OT and in Modern Theology,” Interpretation 17 (1963): 193–205; and James Barr, “The Concepts of History and Revelation,” in Old and New in Interpretation (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 65–102. Against Barr’s views, one must note that the OT indicates a regard for “God’s acts” and “deeds” and even tends to put these deeds into a kind of sequential order. Furthermore, against Barr’s rejection of “revelation” as “a general term for man’s source of knowledge of God,” one must simply point to the Pauline teaching about the natural knowledge of God available to all human beings (Rom. 1.19). More significantly, Pannenberg rightly criticized Barr and those influenced by him for giving up the category of “history” altogether in favor of “story” or “narrative”: Theology can honor the realistic intention of the biblical accounts only if it takes seriously their witness to the divine action in real events which come upon people and in part were fashioned by them,

261

262

Fundamental Theology

of all creation and of God’s final revelation in glory collapse completely into the existential present moment. It should be emphasized that the Hebrew word dabar, which can be rendered either as “word” or “event,” and so signifies both, conveys this twofold dimension within the divine revelation (see Ps. 33.6; Gen. 1.1; and Jer. 23.29, where the dabar of the LORD is described as being like “fire” and “a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces”). What Pannenberg, on the one hand, and Bultmann and Barth, on the other, tear apart must be kept together: Divine revelation is both historical event and the divine word of address that interprets the event and that summons the listener to trust the address as address from God in the present. The Roman Catholic Constitution on Divine Revelation that was formally received at the Second Vatican Council frames this issue correctly. It strikes the right balance between “history” and “word of God”: The pattern of this revelation unfolds through deeds and words bound together by an inner dynamism, in such a way that God’s works, effected during the course of the history of salvation show forth and confirm the doctrine and the realities signified by the words, while the words in turn proclaim the works and throw light on the meaning hidden in them.49

(4) Revelation as interior experience of God’s grace or communion with God. The fourth type of understanding views divine revelation neither as a collection of propositional truths, nor as an historical series of events, nor as an existential proclamation in the present, but as an interior experience of God’s grace or communion with God. In this type, whatever its content or means, God’s revelation actually takes place within the interior soul of the one who is open to God’s grace. This experience is a direct, unmediated encounter between God and the soul, not the communication of information or abstract church teaching. In view of Kant’s critique of most forms of religious knowledge, a strength of this fourth type is to stress that divine revelation exists in a different dimension from the sciences and thus provides a different kind of truth. As Tillich notes, “If myth and cult are considered to be the expression of the depth of reason in symbolic form, they lie

inquiring into the divine action in the reality of what we call history today. We may not be able to do this without taking a critical view of the historicity of many of the details and stories in the biblical texts, but if theology seeks God’s historical action in the sequence of events which the Bible records, and as they appear to modern historical judgment and according to their reconstruction on the basis of historicalcritical research, it will be closer to the spirit of the biblical traditions than if it treats the texts simply as literature in which the facticity of what is recorded is a subsidiary matter. (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.231) 49. Dei verbum (Tanner, 2.972).

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

in a dimension where no interference with the proper functions of reason is possible … Revelation does not destroy reason, but reason raises the question of revelation.”50 The view of revelation as “interior experience,” however, will be judged deficient by anyone who wants to take the primary and normative cues for divine revelation from the witness of the prophets and the apostles and not from subjective religious experience, either in the past or in the present. Divine revelation cannot avoid a doctrinal dimension, and yet this model seems to suggest a content-less revelation of private individual experience. Dulles is right to criticize this notion: By divorcing revelation from doctrine this model pays a price. It disappoints many of the expectations with which people ordinarily approach religion. It says in effect that there are no divine answers to the deep human questions about the origin and ultimate destiny of humanity and the world. A church that can acknowledge no revealed doctrine can hardly offer the kind of heavenly wisdom which revealed religion is commonly supposed to supply.51

We should also note that such a completely interior experience or sense of communion with the divine will inevitably vary tremendously according to the individuals who have it. So it is quite unlikely that such an understanding of divine revelation would ever lead to the formation of a durable community (shaped by historical tradition), or at least to any type of historical church. One notes, by way of example, what happened to the Religious Society of Friends (sometimes referred to as the Quakers), which operates with a form of revelation that fits this type. That Society eventually split, with some moving closer toward historic doctrinal Christianity, while others moved moved farther and farther away from it. (5) Revelation as imaginative vision. A final, fifth type holds that revelation expands or fulfills the consciousness of human beings in their world as it gives them a new perspective on God, the self, and the world. Revelation is mediated through revelatory events, which stimulate the human imagination and cause humans to work toward the creative transformation of the world. Lacking in specific content, such revelation nonetheless allows the individual so enlightened to participate in God’s creative and redemptive activity that leads toward reconciliation among divided peoples and ultimate fulfillment in God’s future. While Dulles did not attend to liberationist and feminist theologies in his typology, they clearly would be subcategories of this final type, since, in their differing ways, these theologies also yearn for creative transformation of individual and social relationships, critical rethinking of such categories as race, class, and gender, and the creation of more just communities. Some of these alternative theologians have, as 50. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.81. It should be noted that Tillich’s approach to revelation does not fall neatly into this one type, but overlaps with the second and the fifth as well. 51. Dulles, Models of Revelation, 79.

263

264

Fundamental Theology

in the later work of Mary Daly (1928–2010), definitely and defiantly abandoned any form of Christian teaching, but others have sought to retain a critical perspective from within the Christian church and to articulate ways in which the Christian tradition is capable of reform and adjustment, whether in a feminist critique of Christian teaching (e.g., Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza [b. 1938], Sallie McFague [1933–2019], and Rebecca Chopp [b. 1952]) or in a liberationist critique (e.g., Gustavo Gutiérrez). Certainly, this final type of understanding of revelation allows for more flexibility in the interpretation of Scripture, including the need for criticism of elements within it that have traditionally been understood and used to oppress whole groups of people. This type encourages the re-visioning of church teaching and practices for the sake of positive, needed changes in theological understanding and praxis on behalf of justice and equality. For example, Jon Sobrino (b. 1938) argues that natural theologies, based on reason or the general revelation of God, tend to distort the biblical portrait of God, and of God’s actions in history, by focusing on the goodness of creation and ignoring the realities of sin, evil, and human suffering. Such theologies thus ignore human poverty and suffering in the contemporary world, especially in so-called developing countries. Sobrino, like Luther, emphasizes that theology must take its orientation and content from the suffering of Christ and the special revelation that accompanies his crucifixion, and relate this to the real problems of human suffering and oppression in the world today.52 Despite the important contribution that liberation and feminist theologies make to contemporary theology, they too can run into theological problems, the chief of which is the tendency to conflate a distinctive biblical understanding of salvation, including especially the liberation from sin and death and the judgment of God, with this-worldly political, economic, and social liberation. While there are indeed conditions and patterns of social injustice that ought to be critically investigated and criticized and changed by Christians, there will always be ambivalences inherent in every liberation movement in this world. No political or social or ideological program, no matter how noble or inspiring or valuable, will ultimately solve the deepest human problems, and such movements can easily become distorted or selfserving. Christian theology thus “must always remain mindful of the fact that the deepest servitude of human beings is a servitude to the powers of sin and death from which we are freed only by the death of Christ, in faith in God and his kingdom.”53 Revelation is of God, who remains transcendent to human action and history. Divine revelation cannot be uncritically equated with human creativity and ideologies, however promising they might otherwise appear to be. Every theology must remain 52. Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1978), 195–201. 53. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Christianity in a Secularized World, trans. John Bowden (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 55.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

open to criticism on the basis of the divine transcendence and in view of God’s address of judgment and grace. Although there are significant differences among the types of understanding divine revelation within Christian theology, there are some common points of contact among most, if not all, of them. We may list these as follows: (1) Divine revelation is understood as God’s free action of self-disclosure to the world that is related to God; (2) God’s revelation, at least as understood by Christians, is finally and ultimately centered in Jesus, the incarnate Word of God; (3) This self-revelation of God in Christ is normally accessed through the canonical Scriptures as proclaimed by the church (although the fourth type strays pretty far from this principle); (4) The goal of divine revelation is its reception in faith;54 (5) The self-disclosure of God is an unveiling of God’s essential hiddenness.55 In what has preceded and what will follow this section, it should be clear that the position set forth here more fully accords with aspects of the first two of Dulles’s models. Divine revelation is the self-disclosure of God in history, a self-giving that does involve some doctrinal content (even if that content cannot be strictly identified with every statement in the Bible), especially the teaching and proclamation of God’s command and gospel. God’s special revelation entails specific actions in the church (preaching, administration of the church’s sacraments) that convey the essential theological meaning of revelation. “It is thus fitting that the church has steadfastly insisted that the content of revelation includes both a who and a what, a someone as well as a something. Through God’s work and word we do in fact know God.”56 This self-revelation thus involves a deep connection between certain historical events, ultimately the coming of Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, and the prophetic 54. Dulles, Models of Revelation, 117. Whereas Dulles reflects a Roman Catholic position when he states that “the normal way of access to revelation is through the Church which reads and proclaims the biblical message,” I am here reflecting a Lutheran position that understands the divine word, testified to through prophets and apostles, as the creative source of the church and the abiding norm for the church’s teaching and practice. In this sense, the Scriptures remain above the church, even as they are also read and proclaimed in the church. 55. John Baillie has noted that the recovery of the Bible’s emphasis on God’s self-disclosure in God’s actions within history is a key insight in theological understanding during the past century. This affirmation is in marked contrast to those who insist that divine revelation is the communication of supranatural doctrinal propositions within the Bible. See Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought, 28–9, 62. Nevertheless, as Baillie himself implied but did not develop, the divine self-disclosure has noetic implications. There is a content that is conveyed within the divine self-disclosure. 56. Paul Sponheim, “The Knowledge of God,” in Christian Dogmatics, ed. Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, 2 vols (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1.202 (emphasis in original).

265

266

Fundamental Theology

and apostolic interpretation of these events in the Holy Scriptures, all for the sake of eliciting and strengthening faith in God. These interpretations acknowledge, however, that the fullest revelation of God is still to come. The events in history that reveal and actualize God’s salvation contain a promise that points ahead to a further revelation that they do not themselves entail. The NT thus looks forward to a further event, the eschatological event of the second coming of Jesus, his arrival in glory. The life that Jesus Christ has brought and given to those who trust him is a “hidden life,” not fully accessible or known. The risen Christ is hidden, his presence is concealed. He is only known now by faith. But when “Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory” (Col. 3.4). Throughout the NT, this forward-looking, hope-filled perspective prevails, especially where one finds language about “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (e.g., 1 Cor. 1.7; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13). The term apocalypse, as used in the NT, points forward to that which still waits to be revealed. We need to underscore, however, that this further revelation is already contained within the revelation of the gospel about the death, resurrection, and glorification of Jesus, and that it will be nothing other than the manifestation to all of what God has done in and through Jesus. Christians believe that God’s glory has already been revealed in the person of Jesus, yet the fullness of that revelation must await the final consummation (1 Pet. 4.3, 5.1).

Believing and knowing In light of the above reflections, we can draw some final conclusions about the ways in which “believing” and “knowing” are related in Christian theology.57 While general and special revelation contribute to the knowledge of God, the latter alone gives rise to faith or trust in God. In other words, the proper knowledge of God comes by faith in the gospel promise that is given in special revelation. While human sensing and reasoning about the natural world, as well as philosophical speculation and analysis, can contribute significantly to human understanding of reality, special revelation also gives knowledge of the world, but in a radically different way. This knowledge, too, comes by means of the gospel whose aim is the creation and support of faith. So there is a knowledge of the universe and of human beings that also arises as a result of faith in the gospel. By such faith humans come to know the universe, including themselves, other human beings, and all other things, to be the work of the Creator who has revealed himself in Jesus. We may thus distinguish three basic ways in which “believing” and “knowing” are related:

57. The following lines of reflection come from Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.96–110.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

Believing as knowing Faith in God comes from hearing God’s promises, ultimately, the good news about Jesus Christ. Believers trust and heed the gospel promise, and they live their lives in the light of it. Such trusting and heeding take place in the midst of life, and they are never separated from what people learn and know by other means. Consequently, faith cannot be reduced to a mere emotional state or a vague feeling, nor to an act of willing or a leap into the unknown. For faith in the gospel is at the same time, as Schlink has stated, “knowledge of God’s historical act of salvation in Jesus Christ, which the gospel proclaims and which happens to the believer through the gospel.”58 Consequently, this type of believing is a special way of knowing, one that arises from God’s special revelation. Its focus is on the message about Jesus, especially the message about his death on the cross, and the claim that God has acted decisively in and through him for the salvation of the world. For this reason, the message of the gospel is paradoxical in nature: God speaks through human language, God acts through an historical figure, and yet that person’s death is said to be salvific for the world. In hearing the message of the gospel proclaimed through human words, faith hears God’s own address. Faith clings to the humanly proclaimed gospel as to the word of God; it clings to Jesus as to the God who has come into the world; it recognizes in the powerlessness of Jesus and the offensiveness of his cross the revelation of divine power and love; and it clings to the earthly, sacramental elements as the means of divine grace. In each of these ways, paradoxical as they are, God’s special revelation seeks to create and sustain faith in God, in his love and mercy. This faith also recognizes that the God who has acted in and through Jesus is the same God who has acted through the history of ancient Israel, and who has fulfilled the divine promises contained in that history. This God is acknowledged to be the Creator of the universe, who created the world in the freedom of his love, and who will act to bring this creation to its fulfillment. Such knowing does not come from seeing or reasoning, but only from believing the divine promises—and such believing is constantly being challenged, corrected, reformed, and informed by those same divine promises that are proclaimed and studied anew again and again. Even in faith, God remains unsearchable and his ways inscrutable (cf. Rom. 11.33).

Believing as the disruption of knowing While humans can gain relatively accurate knowledge of their world, of themselves, and of others apart from divine revelation (either general or special), through all the powerful means of scientific or intellectual inquiry, such knowledge is called into question insofar as God bears witness to himself as the transcendent Creator to 58. Ibid., 2/1.96.

267

268

Fundamental Theology

whom all are accountable. In this way, human knowing “takes place in a state of unrest that cannot stop with the individual thing that is known but continues to inquire about the all-encompassing, the whence and whither, the meaning of humankind and of the world.”59 While people may try all sorts of creative ways of evading their accountability to their Creator—of shielding themselves from God’s own questioning of them, of seeking to secure themselves over against the uncertainties of the world, and of their standing before God—faith arises when this kind of knowing is disrupted. While the gospel does not do away with the knowledge of the world, including of human beings, which comes through the rigorous investigation of nature and of history, it does point to the limits of such knowledge. Empirical knowing is thus circumscribed by faith. Such knowing cannot provide ultimate answers regarding the nature of God, the purpose of human beings, the meaning of history, or even the meaning of the scholarly investigation of nature and history. The theology of the cross presents pointed questions about the limits of human knowing, about the potential for corruption and deception in human thinking, and of the human experience of being called into question by God’s word of address. Christ thus breaks open and disrupts all ideological worldviews, philosophical systems, intellectual positions, and theological constructs that people erect to shield themselves from the infinite, the unpredictable, death, and the threat of God. Christ destroys all idols, all false gods that human beings fabricate, including, I would add, idols that Christians themselves construct in Christ’s name. Christ then takes hold of individuals in a saving way and frees them to see the reality of this world clearly, with all of its difficulties and complexities.

Believing as the liberation for knowing Belief also enhances knowledge. “When faith disrupts knowing, it makes knowing possible.”60 While faith liberates us for seeking true knowledge of God on the basis of the witness to God’s acts of salvation in history, faith—as that which calls hubristic reason into question—also liberates us to pursue accurate empirical knowledge of ourselves and of our world. The message of the gospel, received in faith, frees thinking for knowledge of the world and of ourselves. Faith in the gospel grounds us in the midst of a mysterious and threatening world. For faith, what is ultimately important is that “all things are yours …, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God” (1 Cor. 3.21-23). We need not fear the world or anything else, save God, who loves us. We are freed to investigate this world, its mysteries and perplexities, its unpredictability and incomprehensibilities, to continue questioning and investigating. The gospel and its consequences also alert one to potentially 59. Ibid., 2/1.97. 60. Ibid., 2/1.98.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

dangerous knowledge. Not everything that can be done technologically ought to be done. (Has not the global climate crisis driven home this point?) But then, too, faith itself entails a humility in relation to the world’s complexities and challenges. There’s no room for hubris within Christian faith. To be sure, Christ does not provide whatever results are given through scholarly research; these are the result of patient, careful, critical, rational work. In this respect, there is no such thing as “Christian astronomy” or “Christian physics” or “Christian mathematics.” But Christ does free researchers and scholars for singleminded, cool-headed realism with respect to whatever scholarly question is guiding them. Even scholarly theologians must continually test and evaluate their findings against the Scriptures and the historic witness to Jesus Christ, and to do so in light of historical and philosophical understandings and in dialogue with the other scholarly disciplines, including those that study Christianity and the other world religions from nontheological perspectives. The role of academic theology in relation to the nontheological disciplines is circumscribed to questions about ideology, worldview, the nature of reality as a whole, the reality of God, the acting force of God, the word of God, and about basic human, religious, and ethical questions that arise in both theology and the other disciplines. While theology can address these issues and questions in dialogue with the other faculties, it cannot supplant or interfere with actual empirical research in the other disciplines. The Scriptures are a “light to our path,” a light that unveils us and our world for what we are before God, but they are not a depository for all the possible contents of the sciences. Conversely, while the nontheological disciplines can help theology in testing and clarifying its knowledge, they cannot prove (or disprove) or demonstrate (or eradicate) the truth of Christian faith or supplant the basis of theology in the reality of God and of God’s own acting and addressing. The conviction of Christian faith only comes from the reception of God’s special revelation in the prophetic and apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, not from some other basis, whether philosophical or scientific. Even though knowledge in faith does not displace the knowledge gained through philosophy, the sciences, law, and medicine, it can and often does influence it. Such a dialogue between theology and the nontheological disciplines invites mutual criticism, especially when the intrusion of ideology interferes with the epistemic processes and supposed conclusions in the sciences and theology, or when science presupposes God is unreal, or when theology interferes with the epistemic processes and valid conclusions in the sciences. The path to true knowledge and wisdom involves both the light of cognitive knowledge in the sciences and the light of God’s critical and life-giving word.61 Since I will return to the issue of the relationship between the sciences and theology in Chapter 15, we can leave this matter for now. But it is important to stress 61. Cf. Becker, “Christ in the University: The Vision of Schlink,” 12–21.

269

270

Fundamental Theology

that all human knowledge, including one’s own, is not only limited, fragmented, easily distorted by the power of sin and evil, but also forgiven and renewed by the crucified and risen Christ. Thus, by faith in the gospel, knowledge itself is disrupted and liberated, but it is also empowered by the Holy Spirit and guided by Christian love and the divine mandates that enjoin such love. Christ commands us to respect all human beings equally as creatures of God. Everyone is my neighbor. In Christ God the Creator is revealed not only as my Creator but as the Creator of all creatures, great and small, as the Creator and Lord of the universe. Every human being is precious to God. So there is no distinction in value among peoples, races, nations. Christ thus leads people in their thinking and acting to be concerned for all, especially the weak, the suffering, the marginalized, the poor, the forgotten ones in this tumultuous world. Christ teaches people not to become enslaved to ideologies or to grow weary in the task of ongoing thinking and researching or to be blinded by idolatry and self-glorification. By forgiving and freeing human beings from sin and all fears, Christ directs our thinking and our creativity into service for others. The abovementioned reflections take us back to the basic AugustinianAnselmian motto, “faith seeking understanding.” Such seeking is not restricted to philosophical and scientific research but also includes academic theology. The history of Christian thought has taken place in the context of the abovementioned relationships between believing and knowing. As we have seen in earlier chapters, at times in that history the emphasis has been on how faith acts to disrupt or relativize human knowledge (e.g., Tertullian, Luther, Barth), while at other times the emphasis has been on how faith liberates people to pursue empirical, scientific investigation of things or to undertake philosophical reflection (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Aquinas, Schleiermacher). This twofold action of faith to rupture and liberate knowledge also takes place in academic theology. Here theology seeks to make sense of the Christian faith, to seek to understand all of God’s actions in history, and to express the knowledge of faith in statements about God himself. Following Schlink’s analysis, we can summarize four lines of theological inquiry that arise from these considerations.62 (1) Christian faith seeks to understand its own historical basis. Such inquiry moves from the gospel message about the event of Jesus to the original witnesses to this event, and then from them to the historic event to which they bear witness (however difficult it might be to reconstruct that event historically). Because of the nature and content of this witness, this inquiry also moves back into the founding Scriptures of the Old Testament and to their contents. 62. Cf. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.105–10.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

(2) Christian theology seeks to understand the manifold ways in which the original witness of the apostles and prophets has come down through history to the present. Such inquiry focuses on the various forms of theological statement that have arisen in the history of the church on the basis of God’s special revelation. (3) Christian theology inquires about the unity within this manifold witness to Christ and to God’s other acts of special revelation in history, and about what this unity might mean for contemporary issues that the church is facing. (4) Faith inquires about the statements humans use to respond to God’s act of salvation and by which they also bear witness to others in their concrete historical, social, and political situation. Wherever these four lines of inquiry are undertaken, the current knowledge of Christian faith is subject to examination and critique that both partly confirms and partly corrects that knowledge. (We will return to this issue when we discuss the challenges of theological interpretation of the Bible, which involves a “hermeneutical circle.”) All available extra-theological knowledge is to be taken into account through such inquiry, to assist in the effort of clarifying the knowledge of faith and correcting false or untenable understandings of it (cf. Chapter 3), while also being prepared to identify unjustified assertions, ideological presuppositions, prejudice, and unwarranted confidence. There is a kind of resistance to closure and totalistic systematization in theology. While the nontheological disciplines in the university can assist theology by examining and clarifying its knowledge, they cannot demonstrate the truth of the Christian faith. The latter is based solely in God’s revelation, which contains the promise that only in the future will God be revealed as the One who is truly reliable and trustworthy (cf. Heb. 11.1).

The basic structures of faith-statement Finally, we need to draw attention to the basic forms of the human response to God’s special revelation in history. That faithful response is twofold: to God and to other human beings. Within this basic twofold response to God’s actions several different types of theological statement have arisen, and their specific structures need to be taken into account when seeking to understand such statements of faith.63

63. I am here following Schlink’s classic analysis of the basic forms of theological statement. See Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.115–39 (cf. Schlink, “The Structure of the Dogmatic Statement as an Ecumenical Issue,” in ESW, 1.67–125).

271

272

Fundamental Theology

In prayer, which is directed to God, humans speak to God in a variety of ways and with a variety of moods and emotions. They might acknowledge before God that they are sinners, thank God for the salvation he has accomplished, call upon God in endearing terms, and come before him in childlike confidence. But they might also lift up a protest against God, lament their dire straits, cry out to God for help, and pray for the needs of others. The Psalms provide a rich variety of prayers, while the Lord’s Prayer is a basic expression of faith by all Christians. Christian prayer takes place both individually (through personal meditation, devotional reading, private prayer, etc.) and corporately (as a part of Christian worship services, where praise, thanksgiving, supplications for others are offered to God). In doxology (lit. “uttering praise,” “giving glory”), humans worship and praise God, and give thanks for the reality of God: “Glory to God in the highest” (Lk. 2.14), or “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.” This type of theological statement is found already in the Psalms, but it is scattered among the NT writings as well: “to God be glory forever” (Rom. 11.36; cf. 1 Tim. 1.17; Rev. 4.11, 7.12, 19.1-10). “To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 16.27). Such doxologies simply acknowledge the glory and majesty that God already has prior to the offering of human praise. Doxology arises from God’s acts of salvation. They offer adoring praise of God’s eternal reality on the basis of God’s mighty acts of salvation for us and for the world. They acknowledge God as God. One of the most common terms used in doxology is the Hebrew word Hallelujah (or Alleluia), which means “Praise the Lord!” It is found in hymns, songs, cantatas, and oratorios (e.g., the “Alleluia” chorus in George Fridric Handel’s Messiah). In witness, the faithful person addresses other people in words and actions that testify to the work of salvation that God has done for them, and which is proclaimed to them in the gospel. Like prayer, bearing witness to the gospel takes various forms, for example, through a carefully prepared address or sermon (proclamation), an informal conversation, a biographical statement or address, or through the actions of missionary outreach and service in the name of Christ. Among the most influential forms of witness in the history of the church have been biographical and autobiographical accounts of Christian believers, especially martyrs, mystics, and other significant personalities.64 In such presentations to others, those who bear witness attest both to God’s historic action and to God’s action in the present, for 64. High on the list of such written testimonies is the Life of Antony of Egypt by Athanasius (written c. 360), which played a role in Augustine’s conversion, a process that he recounts in his own Christian autobiography, the Confessions (c. 400), probably the first in its genre in Western culture. Other such written Christian witnesses include the anonymously written History of the Monks in Egypt (c. 400), examples of “group biography,” which define and propagate a communal way of life, the various “lives of the saints” (often containing fanciful, legendary elements), and more recent, less legendary biographies and autobiographies of well-known Christians, including Bono’s Surrender (New York: Knopf, 2022).

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

example, regarding what the individual believer has experienced in terms of God’s salvation and preservation and what it has done for them. But there are many other genres of Christian “witness,” including sermons, letters, poems, songs, even diaries that become publicly known. In teaching, the faithful teacher addresses other human beings to tell them about God’s saving actions that have been handed down authoritatively in the OT and NT Scriptures. Such teaching seeks to transmit and understand the sayings of Jesus, reports about his ministry, his death and the reports about his appearances after his death, in addition to the biblical prophesying and preaching about God’s salvific acts, the brief confessions of faith that are embedded in the prophetic and apostolic writings, and the apostolic exhortations that are grounded in the gospel. It also presents and examines the long, rich history of Christian writing and reflection on all those topics. The basic aim of teaching is to preserve the historic, once-for-all act of God’s salvation in Christ as the basis for all the other manifold responses of faith, also in relation to God’s actions as Creator, as founder of the OT covenant, and as the author of the new creation and its consummation. Literary forms of teaching include such genres as theological essays and books, biblical commentaries, explanatory treatises on the writings of early, medieval, Reformation, and modern theologians, and multivolume summaries of Christian teaching. In the confession of faith, all the responses to God’s act of salvation are combined in a unique manner. Confession brings together prayer and witness, doxology and teaching. This type of faith response is found already in the NT, for example, where Jesus is given honorific titles (e.g., “Christ,” “Son of God,” “Lord”), and such titles bear witness to the claim of his resurrection from the dead. The earliest and most basic confession most likely was simply “Jesus is Lord!” Through confessing the faith, believers express to God and to others their commitment to Christ, the one to whom they believe God has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28.19-20). Additional shorter confessions (which are aimed toward both God and other human beings) are also found in the earliest apostolic tradition, for example, “Christ is risen!” Other confessions of faith, which are both doxological and doctrinal (aimed at teaching), are more expansive, drawing attention to further details in God’s salvific action in Jesus. Still other confessional statements, which developed in post-biblical times, are more formal in nature, arising from the church’s sacramental life (e.g., the Apostles’ Creed, which developed in the context of baptism), or from the church’s need to clarify the identity of God or of Jesus Christ over against false understandings (e.g., the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which developed as a response to a false understanding of the Logos). These confessions of faith, or creedal statements, are actually used in Christian worship as well as in Christian instruction, and they serve as a kind of normative summary of God’s salvific action, to which special revelation bears witness. Certainly, “academic theology” is only one way of reflecting in a Christian context. Informal conversation, more formal discourse, mystical experience, hymnody, and

273

274

Fundamental Theology

patterns of human action beyond formal theology also take place in university settings. Since we have been following Schlink’s analysis in this final section, he should have the final word here: Only through all of the basic forms together can the whole response to the gospel be expressed, and in a response that is truly fitting to God, since God is not an object of perception and statement like other objects that one can perceive, investigate, comprehend, and define. Rather, God encounters us in the gospel as the Lord, who claims us and is gracious to us and who wants to be honored by us as this Lord in the abundance of his glory, to be honored by the whole person and thus by the person in all that one’s personal relationships, namely, in the total commitment of the person to God, in departing from the world, and in caring commitment toward the world in the mission of God. For that reason, the clarification of the basic forms of theological statement is not only of phenomenological interest but also of normative significance. And since the whole response to the gospel cannot be expressed in each individual basic form but only through all of them together, this clarification has great consequence … In all of these basic forms of faith response, the fundamental issue is God, that is, the explicit appeal to God, whether one prays to him, or he is proclaimed or worshiped, or his acts are taught, or whether—all these in one—he is confessed.65

Questions for review and discussion 1. The chapter identifies two basic positions regarding the relationship between “general revelation” (the natural knowledge of God) and “special revelation,” that of Aquinas and the one articulated by Luther. If you had to pick one of these as more persuasive, which one would it be? Why? 2. Why has the Protestant theological tradition generally warned against basing Christian theology on a strictly rational approach to the reality of God? Do you agree or disagree with this concern? 3. In what ways is God “hidden?” 4. How does the author define special revelation? Does he think it is the revelation of eternal, abstract truths? What gets “revealed” in special revelation? 5. What is the content of the gospel, according to Jesus, as presented in the Gospel according to Mark? What is the content of the gospel according to the apostle Paul? How is each understanding similar to the other? How are they different? 6. How did Martin Luther define “the gospel?”

65. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.124–5.

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

7. Be familiar with Dulles’s five models of understanding revelation. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each model? Which model is more persuasive than the others? Why? Are there elements that all five models have in common? 8. The relationship between faith and reason (believing and knowing) has been a problematic issue since the beginning of Christian theology. Echoing the analysis of Edmund Schlink, the author points to three basic ways in which Christian theologians have understood this relationship. Do you agree that Christian faith entails some kinds of “knowledge?” In what way(s) does faith rub against or disrupt human reasoning? Are there limits to human knowing in relation to theology? Do you agree that Christian faith liberates one for scholarly research? 9. Describe the five basic types of faith statement. How are they similar to each other? How are they different from one another?

Suggestions for further reading Classic statements on special revelation Aquinas, ST, I.12. For Luther, see Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology, 196–218, and Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 15–24. For older Lutheran Protestant views, see Schmidt, Doctrinal Theology, 21–38. Calvin, ICR, I.43–69. For older Reformed Protestant views, see Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 1–11.

In addition to the works cited at the end of Chapter 4, see: Michael Allen, “Knowledge of God,” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016). [Allen’s position, which reflects a conservative Reformed understanding that is in tension with the one set forth here in this chapter, stresses that the triune God is truth in himself, that God chooses to share his truth with us, that we refuse to receive the truth that God shares with us, and that God gives his truth to us again in Jesus Christ.] Gustav Aulén, The Faith of the Christian Church, trans. Eric H. Wahlstrom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960), 2–95. [An important analysis of the nature of faith and its relation to systematic theology. Aulén was a major Swedish Lutheran theologian.] Paul Avis, ed., Divine Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). [A selection of essays by international scholars that examine the biblical, historical, and contemporarysystematic understandings of revelation.]

275

276

Fundamental Theology

John Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956). [Classic account of mid-twentieth-century understandings of divine revelation. Baillie’s own position generally reflects the one taken here in this chapter.] Karl Barth, “The Christian Understanding of Revelation,” in Against the Stream: Shorter Post-War Writings, ed. and trans. Ronald Gregor Smith (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954), 203–40. [A classic brief statement on the topic by the leading Protestant theologian of the twentieth century.] Matthew Becker, The Self-giving God and Salvation History (New York: T&T Clark, 2004). [This is the only book-length study in English of the life and theology of Johannes von Hofmann. He revised the doctrine of revelation to be about God’s actions within history. According to Hofmann, the Bible is the monument to this history by pointing to the events of divine revelation within it.] Rudolf Bultmann, “The Concept of Revelation in the New Testament,” in Existence and Faith, trans. Schubert Ogden (New York: Meridian, 1960), 58–91. [Controversial essay by the premiere New Testament scholar of the twentieth century. Bultmann thought that faith arises from the contemporary preaching of the gospel about Christ, and that Christ is revealed within that preaching of the gospel. Revelation occurs in the present moment of hearing the gospel and responding in faith. Revelation is not tied to Jesus as he was in history, but only to the word about him in authentic, contemporary Christian preaching.] Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation, rev. edn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985). [A helpful overview of the principal options within contemporary Christian theology.] Brian Gerrish, Saving and Secular Faith: An Invitation to Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999). [A very helpful overview of the nature and function of Christian faith, which is set in the context of the human search for meaning.] H. Richard Niebuhr, The Meaning of Revelation (New York: Macmillan, 1941). [A classic interpretation of the nature of divine revelation within history. Niebuhr wrestles with historical relativity and the relationship between reason and imagination, for the sake of distinguishing between what is essential to the Christian faith and what is secondary.] Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Dogmatic Theses on the Doctrine of Revelation,” in Revelation as History, trans. David Granskou (London: Macmillan, 1968), 123–58. [Controversial and groundbreaking set of theses in which Pannenberg argues that divine revelation is not the disclosure of truths about God but the self-unveiling of God, which is indirect in historical events, and only fully direct at the end of history, when all preceding historical events and all of reality will be illuminated. This universal revelation is proleptically realized in Jesus of Nazareth and his resurrection from the dead.] Paul Ricoeur, “Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation,” Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977): 1–37. [Explores various types of biblical discourse, each of which belongs to specific theologies that reveal some aspect about God. The essay stresses the importance of poetic discourse for divine revelation, which can never be reduced to a systematic, rational set of beliefs.]

Special Revelation and Christian Faith

Christoph Schwöbel, God: Action and Revelation (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992). [The second part of this book explores the concept of revelation in relation to human experience and faith. The author argues that a theology of revelation should not exclude the concept of experience nor should a theology of experience exclude the concept of divine revelation.] Richard Swinburne, Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). [This major philosopher of religion thinks that if God exists, God has good reasons for making God known. Swinburne moves from a consideration of how poetry can reveal metaphorical and analogical truth through a consideration of what would count as revelatory truth within a book or statement of faith. He concludes by considering whether the Christian Bible and Christian creeds convey truth.] Ronald Thiemann, Revelation and Theology: The Gospel as Narrated Promise (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1985). [Thiemann brings Luther into conversation with Barth’s understanding of revelation and stresses the Barthian notion that knowing God is itself an act of divine grace.] Dan O. Via, The Revelation of God and/as Human Reception in the New Testament (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997). [Via’s helpful analysis of several NT passages underscores that divine revelation is other than and prior to the human reception that it elicits, and yet divine self-revelation does not occur apart from its human reception.]

277

8 Sources and Norms of Christian Theology After briefly reviewing two different approaches to the problem of sources and norms in Christian theology with respect to the use of the Christian Bible, the chapter discusses the distinction between the word of God and the Bible, the principal source of Christian theology (the NT Scriptures), the second main source (the OT), subordinate sources, and theology’s central norm (the gospel).

The preliminary sketch of Christian theological traditions in Chapters 1 and 2 has identified the principal methodological approaches to Christian theology. The description of the task of theology in Chapter 3 indicates that theology involves critical and self-critical reflection about the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. Such reflection not only takes into account how that witness has been understood and believed in the Christian churches over time, but it also seeks to interpret that witness within the academic setting of a university. In this setting, theology has a four-fold goal: (1) to understand the content of the apostolic witness in the ecumenical and intellectual situation of the present; (2) to consider the nature of Christian faith as trust in the gospel promise that is given within the apostolic witness; (3) to identify weak or even false understandings of that witness; and (4) to appropriate the possible truth and wisdom within the witness. This fourfold goal raises additional issues in theological methodology, especially concerning the authority and interpretation of the Christian Bible and its relation to other sources of theological knowledge. These issues will be explored more fully here. All Christian theologians affirm that the Bible (Latin: biblia = “books”) is central for the proper knowledge of God, but they have frequently disagreed among themselves about the extent and nature of its authority and about how best to interpret it in light of other knowledge and human experience. These disagreements about the Bible’s authority and its use in theology make clear that not every Christian theologian follows the same methodology in theology. If Christian theology in a university context is a discipline that invites critical and self-critical reflection on the revelation of God, the world, and of human beings in

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, a revelation that has been mediated through historical documents and handed down through living communities of Christians, how should that enterprise be undertaken? Is the Bible the sole source of Christian theology or are there other sources? If there are additional sources of theology beyond the Bible, what is their proper relationship to the Bible and its contents? What norms or standards should one use to set forth the abiding content of Christian teaching? If there is more than one norm or guiding principle, then how does one navigate among those norms and principles when they conflict with one another, as can easily happen when one engages in Christian theology within a university setting? If the Bible remains the principal authority for Christian theology, which principles should guide one’s interpretations of it?

The issue of sources and norms As has already been indicated at the end of Chapter 2, contemporary Christian theology manifests two broad, conflicting tendencies regarding the sources and norms of theology.1 On the one hand, there have been those theologians, such as David Tracy, who argue that Christian academic theology must be guided by the same criteria that are used elsewhere in the university, for example, the scholarly criteria that are used in the modern natural and social sciences. The use of these criteria, external to Christian theology and its subject matter, does not necessarily provide theologians with a set of rules to follow but with a basic and normative way of doing theology that is always open to revision. Within this revisionist approach, one’s understandings of the Bible and church traditions are always open to criticism from external sources. From this perspective, it is always possible that one’s theological understandings may need to be revised in light of other knowledge and experience. In this approach, the interpretation of the Bible occurs in light of contemporary scientific knowledge and philosophical reflection, which are used to help explicate the Bible’s contemporary meanings and applications. Such an approach to theology also utilizes modern scholarly methods for investigating the historical and literary dimensions of the Bible. There is much to commend in this theological approach, especially its concern to explicate the content of Christian theology in a way that is meaningful for contemporary people and that takes into account knowledge from other university disciplines that has a bearing on theological understanding. The actual execution of this method of theology, however, can potentially lead to the loss of the substance of 1. These tendencies are also described quite generally by Hans Frei in his posthumously published book, Types of Christian Theology, ed. George Hunsinger and William C. Placher (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 2–7.

279

280

Fundamental Theology

the Christian faith if the particularities of Christian teaching and practice become subsumed under non-Christian criteria and explanations. In the effort to make Christian teaching meaningful and relevant, the fullness of orthodox Christian teaching can be diminished or explained away. Extra-Christian sources and norms might assume a superior role in the theological enterprise of translating Christian teachings into non-Christian categories within the context of the public discourse in the academy. In the process of translating Christian doctrine into contemporary categories the distinctive content of Christian teaching, such as the dogmas of God and Christ, might easily get lost. In contrast to the various forms of this kind of revisionist theology, there have been other theologians who have tended to understand Christian theology completely (or mostly) within the cultural or semiotic system that constitutes “Christianity” as a distinct religion and to articulate theology entirely (or mostly) according to the “grammar” or “internal logic” of “the Christian narrative,” as it is authoritatively given in the Bible and summarized in the classic creeds and confessions of the Christian churches. In Chapter 2 we identified this approach as post-liberal. Its method is not transcendental or universal, and does not claim to be, but rather it is quite specific to the internal language and grammar of the Christian faith that together form the self-description of Christian faith and practice. Of special concern for post-liberal theologians is the perceived need to articulate and defend the particular Christian narrative and how that narrative shapes the life of the Christian within both the church and the academy. According to this approach, Christian truth is entirely a matter of “coherence” within the world of the Bible, of how Christian beliefs and practices are interconnected into an integrated and coherent whole that provides the overarching framework of meaning for Christians in their community of faith. This model of post-liberal theology also has some significant weaknesses. For example, a follower of this approach could make the case that orthodox Christian theology has no legitimate place within a public university, since theology can only be guided and defined by sectarian criteria of faithfulness, truth, and orthodoxy. In the post-liberal view, theology should not be guided by any external criteria for judging evidence and argumentation. It should more or less operate according to its own parochial norms and standards. If followed consistently, therefore, such a method could end up with a form of theology that is quite sectarian and isolated from mainstream scientific knowledge and the central intellectual currents of the time. It is thus difficult to imagine that theologians who follow this method consistently are actually interested in learning from other academic disciplines when those disciplines might have something true and worthwhile to contribute to biblical and theological understanding. They seem uninterested in Luther’s key point that human experience contributes to theological understanding. (It should be pointed out that the key post-liberal theologians, George Lindbeck, Hans Frei [1922–88], and Stanley Hauerwas, have in fact allowed modern knowledge to inform their theological

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

understandings, but such informing seems arbitrary and not really consistent with their basic methodological concerns.)2 Within the American context, Protestant fundamentalism takes an even more radical position when it comes to extra-biblical sources and norms for theology. For example, one early-twentieth-century Lutheran theologian, Francis Pieper (1852– 1931), actually asserted that the Copernican Theory of a heliocentric solar system must be rejected as contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible, and thus contrary to the Christian truth and faith.3 For Pieper, the Bible’s “worldview” must be held to be absolute and inviolate against all comers. While he acknowledged in theory that the Bible is not a science textbook, he nevertheless insisted that when the Bible treats matters that the sciences also treat, the Bible’s position (i.e., Pieper’s interpretation of the Bible’s position) is the correct one, regardless of the evidence in the world “out there” and rational argumentation from the sciences that investigate that evidence. According to Pieper, since straightforward statements in the Bible conflict with postCopernican cosmology, a “Bible-believing” Christian must reject the latter theory and allow the first chapters in Genesis and all other geocentric statements in the Bible “to absorb” the universe (to use Lindbeck’s metaphor). One can easily conclude that Pieper would support the post-liberal view toward the Bible and a coherence theory of truth, had he been around to learn of these notions, and it is not surprising that many of Pieper’s theological heirs have done so. Like Pieper, other conservative Christians also affirm a “six-day” creation to be the clear teaching of Scripture and thus a basic element in the doctrinal content of the biblical texts. They thus reject the theory of evolution as contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Christians of this mindset do not allow any role for extra-biblical sources of knowledge to inform their understanding of the Bible and those of its statements that overlap with what the natural sciences also investigate. Data from outside the Bible that conflicts with the interpretation of the Bible by these conservative Christians must be rejected. For them the Bible is the sole source and norm of faith and theology. The theological method followed by Pieper and his heirs is simply unsustainable within an academic setting, at least one in which church authorities do not interfere with the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Few if any reputable scientists today would pay any serious attention to Pieper’s theological assertions about the cosmos, and 2. For a more detailed critique of Lindbeck’s post-liberal approach to theology, see Christine Helmer, Theology and the End of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2014), 14–20, 149–50. Helmer rightly underscores the need for theology (i.e., Christian doctrine) to take seriously God’s actions in human lives, within communities, and in history. Helmer creatively reconceptualizes doctrine in such a way that “doctrine may acknowledge what is unexpected and surprising about the actions of the living God in history and personal experience” (ibid., 19). 3. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols and index, trans. Theodore Engelder, Walter W. F. Albrecht, and J. T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950–7), 1.473.

281

282

Fundamental Theology

many would rightly judge his idea of biblical authority to be coercive and oppressive toward free academic inquiry. How many Christian theologians today are uninterested in learning from the nontheological disciplines, even when those disciplines present evidence and argumentation that directly relate to the theologian’s own subject matter and that might require theologians to modify their biblical interpretation and theological understanding accordingly? Those who follow Pieper’s line of thinking would probably have a difficult time being self-critical about their theological understandings and biblical interpretations, however coherent they are with their other beliefs and practices. Similarly, early Christian theologians used the Bible in ways that later Christians find deeply troubling. For example, some Christians have used the Bible to justify institutions and structures that have enslaved whole groups of people. The Bible was used to keep people “in their proper place” and to support slavery, racial segregation, and the subordination of women in church and society, all within what was seen as a coherent biblical framework of Christian belief and practice. In this regard as well, these earlier biblical interpreters had a difficult time discerning how the Bible might be wrongly used. Despite the problematic use of the Bible within the history of Christianity, theologians today will continue to make use of the Bible as the principal source of Christian theology, at least if they desire to maintain the particular identity and integrity of Christian teaching. But the Bible cannot be the sole source of Christian theology. Other sources factor into the theological task, even if they have only a subordinate role to play in the articulation of theological understanding. If postliberal theologians are correct to stress that Christian theologians must take their primary bearings from the particularities of the biblical revelation, especially the gospel promise, that revelation is never the sole factor in the theological enterprise. We have already noted the importance of reckoning with the so-called general revelation of God that occurs apart from the Christian Bible (although the Bible itself draws attention to this extra-biblical revelation). This extra-biblical revelation is thus an aspect of the subject of Christian theology. The revelation of God apart from Christ, despite its ambiguities, is sufficient to indicate that Christian theology is about more than only “what the Christian Bible teaches.” The challenge of Christian theology within a university setting is to keep its proper subject matter in view, especially the promise of the Christian gospel and the distinctive “mode of faith” or “way of believing” that comes from this good message, while undertaking the scholarly investigation of that subject matter by means of academic criteria and methods that operate in the other human sciences.4 In this way the problem of the sources and norms of Christian theology keeps open the dialectic between the subject of Christian theology and the ways in which that subject is critically and creatively investigated within the academy.

4. Cf. Schleiermacher, CF, §§10–12 (1.67–93).

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

This approach is also consistent with the dominant stream of Christian theology, in which various Christian thinkers have used specific philosophies to assist them in explicating the content of Christian faith for their contemporaries. The goal in this approach is to honor as primary the post-liberal concern to maintain the integrity of the Christian gospel while also striving to honor as secondary the revisionist concern to utilize the external criteria of scholarship within the academy and to follow the basic canons of academic civility. Of course, sorting out the competing and conflicting claims within the various sources of Christian theology requires careful attention to the issue of the prioritizing of sources and norms within theology and of discerning where the truth really lies. Here the witness of the apostle Paul to “the truth of the gospel” is helpful (Gal. 2.5, 14). He acknowledged that even within the Scriptures themselves not everything is normative for contemporary Christian faith and practice, that even the key apostle of Jesus, namely, Peter, could err in a matter of faithful practice, and that the church itself could become corrupted and act contrary to the truth of the gospel. The gospel promise, then, really is the central focus for Christian theology, and the concern for it will always distinguish a properly conservative theology from those that deny or disregard it. A truly orthodox and conservative theology is concerned for the truth of the gospel and the sound teaching that flows from it; yet such a theology is also properly liberal in that it truly liberates individuals from sin, death, and the power of evil and liberates them for loving service in the world. While Christian, academic theology will take its primary cues from the biblical gospel, it will also be open to other insights too, insofar as these overlap with its own proper concerns and goals and assist it in the task of clarifying the truth claims within its subject matter.

Sources and norms of Christian theology The word of God and the Bible There is no single passage or book in the Bible that makes reference to the Bible as a whole. The first individuals to refer to the (unspecified) writings of the OT and the NT collectively as “the Bible” (Greek: “to biblion”) seem to have been Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the early third century, while the oldest extant Christian “Bible” as such (i.e., a single manuscript volume [codex] containing a collection of OT and NT Scriptures) was not produced until the fourth century.5 There is no passage 5. OED, 132; Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 307–8, 319; and Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd edn, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 50–1, 107–9. Clement and Origen treated

283

284

Fundamental Theology

in the Bible that refers to the Bible as “the word of God.” While the Bible contains passages that refer to “the word of the LORD,” and even a few that make reference to “God-breathed” writings (2 Tim. 3.16; 2 Pet. 1.21), no one can be certain which “word” and/or writings are being referred to in such passages. One cannot directly apply these passages to the Bible as a whole, since that book did not exist when these passages were first spoken and written. Other Scripture passages suggest that “the word of God” is not identical to any written documents: “Forever, O LORD, thy word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Ps. 119.89 [RSV]). “[T]‌he word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Pet. 1.25). In light of these and similar passages, the word of God cannot be strictly and unconditionally identified with the Christian Bible per se, since the Bible will not last forever. The biblical phrase “word of God” actually has at least four meanings: (1) the creative and active word of God (Gen. 1.1; Ps. 19.1-4, 33.6; 1 Pet. 1.23), (2) the word of God proclaimed by the OT prophets and the NT apostles (Amos 1.2, 3.1; 1 Pet. 1.24), (3) the eternal Word of God (the Logos) that becomes enfleshed in Jesus (Jn 1.1-18), and (4) the written word of God (2 Tim. 3.16; 2 Pet. 1.21). The Bible, then, is a witness to the word of God—given in these various ways. Human access to the word of God is normally through the Bible. The Bible points beyond itself to the active word that called the universe into being and that sustains it, the word proclaimed through the OT prophets, the Word of God that became incarnate in Jesus the Christ. For Christians, the incarnate Word of God is “the same yesterday, today, and even forever” (Heb. 13:8), the abiding Word that remains sure and certain. While that living Word is mediated through the Holy Scriptures, which testify to the Word, the original scriptural texts are not identical to the Word. The Word that became incarnate in Jesus is also tied to the prophetic “word of the LORD,” originally in oral form, that was spoken in and to ancient Israel in its history and by the apostles of Jesus in their witness to his words and deeds. This word of the LORD is quite varied in content, but it can be summarized in terms of both judgment and grace, of law and promise, of wrath and mercy. On the one hand, the word of the LORD was a prophetic message of judgment against sin and injustice. This message was grounded in the moral vision of the Mosaic law, summarized most definitively in “the Ten Words,” the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20). On the other hand, the word of the LORD was also a message of blessing, a wonderful promise about the future, an encouraging and forgiving word of hope. This message was grounded in some writings as sacred Scripture, for example, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which would not be treated as such by later Christians. One of the earliest extant Christian Bibles, the Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), contains most of the OT and NT, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Another early Christian Bible, the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century), contains most of the OT and the NT but also 1 and 2 Clement. See ODCC, 1.432–4. 1 Macc. 12.9 refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as “the holy books” (“ta biblia ta hagia”), but does not specify which books are included in this designation.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

the divine promises to Abram (Gen. 12.3) and David (2 Sam. 7.16), a message about God’s mercy and love and of God’s future acts of salvation. According to the teaching of the apostles, both of these prophetic messages, equally called “the word of the LORD,” must be distinguished from each other, and yet they both have their ultimate fulfillment, end, and resolution in Christ, the living, incarnate Word of God.6 Only in a qualified way, then, may one refer to the Bible as “the word of God,” and only then because it contains the authoritative prophetic and apostolic witness to the word of God in its varying forms and content. However central and important the Bible is for Christian faith and teaching, it is neither identical to God nor the same as Christ, the incarnate Word of God, and it should not be treated as such. Nevertheless, the Bible is special and unique for Christians because it is for them God’s means for drawing attention to the word of God in its multiple forms and content, and ultimately in its authoritative witness to Christ, the incarnate Word of God. Finally, one needs to note, too, that because of the differing kinds of content in the Bible, the diversity of genres and literary forms in the biblical texts, as well as the differing degrees to which each book has been valued and used in the history of all Christian communities, the biblical books do not have a uniform authority. Some books are more central and others less so, just as some sections in some books are more central and important than other sections. Despite these important qualifications and limitations on the Bible’s authority as a whole, the book that Christians call “the Bible” is treasured by them as the principal source of faith and the only clear witness to the living Word of God, Jesus Christ. Several NT passages underscore this point: According to John’s Gospel, Jesus once stated to his detractors, “You search the Scriptures for you think that in them you have eternal life and yet it is they that bear witness to me” (Jn 5.39). The Gospel of John itself declares that the text was written so that the reader of it “would come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God,” and that by believing in

6. Throughout this chapter and the next two, I am favoring a salvation-historical model of biblical theology that sees both continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT. The concept of salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) had been reintroduced into Christian theology through Johannes von Hofmann. See Becker, The Self-giving God and Salvation History, esp. 59–88, 139–58, and 220–32. See also Matthew L. Becker, “Johannes C. K. von Hofmann (1810–1877),” in Nineteenth-Century Lutheran Theologians, ed. Matthew L. Becker (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 189–211. Other scholars who have informed my understanding of this model of biblical theology include Oscar Cullmann (1902–99), esp. his work, Salvation in History, trans. Sidney G. Sowers (London: SCM, 1967); C. H. Dodd (1884–1973), esp. his work, The Authority of the Bible, rev. edn (London: William Collins, 1960); Gerhard von Rad (1901–71), esp. his work, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1962–5); Leonhard Goppelt (1911–73), esp. his posthumously published work, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols, ed. Jürgen Roloff, trans. John Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–2); and Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933), esp. his work, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville: John Knox/Westminster, 2003).

285

286

Fundamental Theology

him such a person would have life in his name (Jn 20.31). According to Luke, the risen Christ opened the disciples’ minds to understand the Scriptures as a witness to the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Messiah (Lk. 24.45-48), that is, Jesus himself. In light of these and similar passages, the authority of the Bible resides in its normative witness to Jesus Christ and to the Spirit’s ongoing use of the prophetic and apostolic words that summon individuals to repent of their sins and to trust in Christ. Despite the fact that the biblical writings are humanly conditioned by the time and circumstances in which they were first spoken, transmitted, and written down, Christian faith does not receive these prophetic and apostolic words “as the word of human beings, but as God’s word” (1 Thess. 2.13; Gal. 1.11), a word that authenticates itself in the lives of those who hear it and trust it as a message for them. The word of God is a word that comes from beyond human beings and does not originate with them, their thoughts or wills or imaginations. It is a word that comes from God. It is a powerful word that leads people to change their understandings of themselves, of their world, and of God. Two biblical texts are particularly important in this respect: “All Scripture is inspired by God [lit. ‘God-breathed’] and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3.16-17) and “you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came about by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1.20-21). Both of these passages teach that the biblical prophets spoke and wrote not by themselves, but by the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 10.20; Mk 13.11; Acts 1.8, 2.4). This is why the Christian Scriptures are to be treated differently from all other books. Through the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit speaks. But the emphasis in both of the above NT passages is on the effective working of the Spirit through the biblical texts, not on the words of those texts per se. “The Bible must therefore be treated with the devotedness, thoroughness and conscientiousness that accord with its authority, that is, its power to originate and further the coming of the Word of God and faith.”7 Some Christians ground the authority of the Bible in a theory about how the Bible’s divine inspiration has taken place. However, as we will see later and in Chapter 9, such an approach to biblical authority is fraught with problems and weaknesses. At no point do the Scriptures explain what is meant by “the inspiration” of the Scriptures, nor do they ever explain how such inspiration took place. Nor do the Scriptures ever claim to be “perfect” or “without error” in every respect. More significantly, the Scriptures themselves do not define the boundaries of what constitutes “Scripture.” While there is general agreement among the mainstream 7. Ebeling, “Introductory Lectures on the Study of the Bible,” in Word and Faith, 427.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

Christian churches about the authority of the twenty-seven writings that form the New Testament, disagreements exist among the churches regarding the extent of the Old Testament canon (for more on this issue, see later in this chapter). It is not only Protestant Christians who have raised critical questions about the canonicity of certain biblical books; such questions surfaced already in the early church. Finally, the Scriptures in and of themselves are not identical with the word of God, given that the Holy Spirit has condescended to use human beings to communicate God’s word. As such, God’s spoken and eventually written word shares in the weaknesses and limitations of human beings and their language. While the Holy Spirit is all-knowing, the Spirit uses the Bible only to teach everything worth knowing with respect to our relationship to God. Furthermore, the Spirit has communicated God’s word through human beings who were not all-knowing, whose time-bound understandings of the world, history, geography, and other nontheological matters are therefore evident throughout the Scriptures. The authority of the Bible does not depend on its being perfectly free of every type of error, or free from historical inexactness, or free from apparent contradictions regarding various details in the biblical texts. Reflective Christians, and the church as a whole, certainly do not worship the Bible or treat it as a talisman, as if it has some intrinsic, magical power apart from its legitimate use as a means of grace. (We will return to this issue more fully in Chapter 9.) A more promising way of understanding the overall authority of the Bible is not by means of a theory about how it is divinely inspired, or by means of a speculative argument regarding its supposed “inerrancy” on all matters about which it speaks, but solely because of the Scriptures’ faith-evoking and faith-strengthening witness to the word of God (in all of its variety), and centrally to Christ, the incarnate Word—and to saving faith in him. This witness is used by the Spirit to make of the Scriptures a means of God’s grace. In this view, Christians revere the Bible because of their reverence for Christ and the fact that he is the central content of the entire Scriptures (cf. Jn 5.39; Lk. 24.27, 32, 44-49). With respect to the articles of faith, then, the Scriptures are absolutely reliable. Orthodox Christians maintain that the Scriptures do not teach any theological errors or make any false assertions about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the central articles of faith. That Jesus is the Christ and the Lord is normatively taught only in the writings of the Christian Bible (inclusive of OT and NT). Apart from these inspired Scriptures, this tradition holds, one could not come to any trustworthy knowledge about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the other central teachings of the faith. Only in the Scriptures does God speak about God or, perhaps more precisely, does “Christ teach about Christ most purely.”8

8. Luther, WA, 5.61 (slightly modified).

287

288

Fundamental Theology

The principal source: The apostolic writings in the New Testament As far as is known today, Jesus of Nazareth did not write anything down for posterity’s sake, nor did he command his immediate followers to write anything down. If he did write something (see Jn 8.6, where Jesus wrote something on the ground), it has not survived to the present. Perhaps we need not remind the reader that Jesus Christ is not a book, nor did the apostles of Jesus have before them a New Testament. They had only the Hebrew Scriptures, which they treated with the utmost respect, as did Jesus and all other first-century Jews. The writings that Christians call “the New Testament” (NT) were written by a variety of Jesus’ subsequent followers, who were themselves dependent upon earlier oral traditions, and all these writings were passed on in koine (ordinary) Greek, the main common language of the eastern Mediterranean region in the wake of Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC). Although this language form was less polished and elegant than the classical Greek of the great Athenian poets and philosophers, it was at that time spoken by a large percentage of the population in areas conquered by Alexander so that it communicated far more effectively than Hebrew (the original language of the OT writings) or Latin. Even many within the scattered Jewish communities in the eastern Mediterranean region after the time of Alexander relied upon a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the so-called Septuagint, which later was used by early Greek-speaking Christians as well). Whether or not Jesus knew this common form of Greek is unknown, but it seems likely that he and his initial followers originally spoke most often in “Aramaic,” a Semitic language closely related to ancient Hebrew, so that already in the NT itself there has been some translating of Jesus’ original words into a different language (although a few of Jesus’ important words in the New Testament are recorded as spoken in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek in the text). Most of the twenty-seven books that are now included in the NT were composed during the half century between about AD 50 and 100. Since Jesus died around the year 30, it was not until twenty years or so after his death that the first NT document was written, probably a letter that the apostle Paul wrote to a Christian congregation he founded in Thessalonica. This delay in Christian writing is important. The disciples of Jesus did not immediately begin to write down the message of the gospel. Instead, the teaching of Jesus and of his apostles was mainly transmitted orally and not initially through writing. It was proclamation (“kerygma”). This oral teaching and preaching carried authoritative weight in the early Christian communities. For example, Paul demonstrated his own dependence upon oral tradition when he passed on set teaching he had received regarding the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, which was also later called the Eucharist

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

because of Jesus’ action of giving thanks to God over the bread and the cup of wine (“Eucharist” = “thanksgiving”; cf. 1 Cor. 11.23).9 This same dependence on oral tradition is evident in his set summary of the report about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15.1-11). Even into the second century, the oral tradition of the gospel was still favored by some, such as Papias (c. 60–130), a Christian bishop in Asia Minor, who wrote, “I did not think that information from books would help me as much as the word of a living, surviving voice.”10 Even later, in the sixteenth century, Martin Luther stressed the proclaimed, spoken gospel as the living voice of God, in contrast to the “dead” letter of Scripture, and he remarked that the Christian church is a “mouth house” and not a “pen house.”11 Within this oral tradition, the authority of the words of Jesus, as remembered by his followers, was given special prominence. This is clear in several NT writings themselves (Acts 20.35; 1 Cor. 7.10; 1 Thess. 4.15), and among the writings of the second, third, and fourth generations of Christian disciples (e.g., Clement of Rome [fl. c. 96], Polycarp [c. 69–c. 155], and Justin Martyr).12 Following the deaths of the apostles, certain writings were treasured, copied, recopied, and passed on to later generations as authoritative and “apostolic” in character, that is, carrying the authority of those original apostles who had known Jesus. Still other writings emerged in the decades after the initial apostolic period. All these first-century writings were understood to contain apostolic teaching that bore witness to Jesus. These writings served as the core of what would come to be called the Christian canon (= “rule,” “measuring rod,” “guiding principle”).13 What was biblical would be canonical, and also vice versa. Because the four NT Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) contain the remembered teachings and actions of Jesus and were written and edited by people who had the closest historical connection to him and the apostles, they gained an early acceptance among Christians in the second century as having scriptural, apostolic, canonical authority. As we will see in the next two chapters, the issue of the literary relationships among these Gospel writings is complicated, but scholars today recognize that for decades prior to the written Gospels, several oral traditions about Jesus circulated independently of one another, and some material in these traditions conflicts with other material in them (at least with respect to their details).

9. Cf. ODCC, 1.655–9. 10. Papias, as quoted in Eusebius of Caesarea, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2007), 127. 11. Luther, Kirchenpostille (1522), WA, 10/1.2, 48, 5. 12. 1 Clement 13.2, 15.2, 24.5 (ANF, 1.8–9, 12); the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 2.3, 5.2, 7.2, 12.3 (ANF, 1.33–6); and Justin Martyr, First Apology and Second Apology (ANF, 1.159–93). 13. ODCC, 1.330.

289

290

Fundamental Theology

Prior to the late second century, when people first spoke of the four written Gospels as a single collection, each Gospel circulated independently, and most communities likely used only one written Gospel.14 Irenaeus mentions, for example, how the Ebionites (“the poor ones”), a sect of Jewish Christians, regarded the Gospel of Matthew as the only valid one.15 That was true for Syrian Christians, too. Still other Christians, notably a few “elites” in Alexandria, primarily used a “secret” Gospel of Mark. Later, other Christian communities would use so-called apocryphal gospels, such as the Gospel of Peter, but these writings were criticized and rejected as heretical by key bishops and not used widely beyond fringe groups.16 A late secondcentury document, the Muratorian Fragment, whose origin and authority were likely connected to the influential bishop of Rome, indicates that four Gospels ought to be used, the last two of which are Luke and John. It is likely that this fragment, which is missing its opening lines, began with references to Matthew and Mark.17 Eventually there came a time, certainly by the early third century, when these four Gospels, and only these four, gained equal recognition among the churches that would be considered “orthodox” and “catholic.” But these four written Gospels were probably not the first writings to be accorded the status of “Christian Scripture.” Among the twenty-seven documents that would eventually be included in most Christian Bibles after the fourth century, the letters of Paul were the first to gain this status (though not by means of any formal church decision, at least not during the first millennium of Christian history). While Paul had not been a follower of the historical Jesus and had actually been an opponent of the early Christian movement, he became a disciple and an apostle after the revelation of Christ that he received (Gal. 1.1, 11-17), and his writings were the first to be treasured and circulated within early Christian communities. Initially each letter was a separate document that had been sent to a specific congregation of Christians. (When one reads the NT, one is largely reading other people’s mail!) These congregations preserved these letters carefully, read them regularly in their worship services, and also copied them so that they could be used by other Christian communities as well.18 In Col. 4.16 one reads: “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the congregation of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.” This statement likely reflects the standard

14. C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd edn (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), 253. 15. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.26.2 (ANF, 1.352). 16. W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 251. 17. For more on the Muratorian Fragment (also called the Muratorian Canon), see Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; reprint, 1997), 191–201. 18. Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 48.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

practice of reading, copying, and sharing Paul’s letters and other writings across the early church—and having them read aloud during Christian worship services. That Paul’s letters gained an early acceptance among Christians is evident in the oldest Christian document outside of the NT, a letter from Clement, a very early bishop of Rome, that dates to around the year 95. It contains statements from Paul’s letter to the Romans, in addition to quotations from First Corinthians and the Letter to the Hebrews (1 Clement 47.1-6.). Eventually, Paul’s writings were grouped into a collection in various places (whose collections likely differed slightly in content from locale to locale). By the middle of the second century the author of Second Peter (a somewhat later writing) included Paul’s letters as being among “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3.16), although we cannot know for certain which of Paul’s writings are being referred to here. In the early church, up through the fourth century, each individual Christian community or cluster of communities (as in those under the authority of the bishop of Rome or those under the authority of one of the other patriarchs) had its own collection of prophetic and apostolic writings that were used in worship and instruction. While these collections varied from region to region, they did contain many of the same documents. Each church would have had its favored Gospel or set of Gospels, which would have been used alongside writings from the OT, either in Hebrew or in the popular Greek translation (the Septuagint version of the OT). Likewise, the letters of Paul had a central authority in all of the Christian communities. While not every church seemed to have known or used First John and First Peter, these writings too had a more central status, as did the book of Acts (the second part of Luke’s written Gospel). Other writings, however, struggled for acceptance “but with unequal success.”19 These included James, Second and Third John, Second Peter, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. Despite early mainstream Christian acceptance and use of the OT, already in the second century some Christians, especially those influenced by the teaching of Paul, questioned the authority of the OT. Some even rejected it outright. One such individual, Marcion of Sinope (c. 85–c. 160), totally rejected the OT writings because they were, in his view, all about an inferior god who was entirely different from the Father of Jesus. For Marcion the god of the OT was a god of war and anger and judgment. This evil god, Marcion contended, is responsible for the despicable creation, full of death and filth and sin. By contrast, the God of the NT, the Father of Jesus, is a God of love and mercy and forgiveness. Marcion maintained that there is no comparison, much less an identity, between the God of Israel and the God of Jesus, so he rejected the whole OT as “unworthy” of being truly Scripture. He also rejected the written Gospels, except for a version of Luke (edited in such a way as to remove its Jewish OT elements), and all of the other writings that would eventually be included 19. Ibid., 49.

291

292

Fundamental Theology

in the NT, except the “true” letters of Paul, the ones that Marcion thought originally contained no quotations from the OT. Any Jewish elements in Paul’s writings were edited out of Marcion’s canon. Any reference to the God of the old covenant, in his view, had to be an addition and not original to the writings of Paul or Luke. We cannot know for certain if the four Gospels were already widely recognized by Christians in the early second century (from which Marcion then selected his edited version of Luke), or if Marcion’s actions forced other Christians to argue for the inclusion of the three Gospels that he rejected. Nevertheless, he likely did lead people to become more aware of the need to define the limits of sacred Scripture. Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasized, at no point during these early centuries did any one group of Christians formally decide or determine those limits. That kind of formal decision did not occur until over a thousand years later, in the sixteenth century, when the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (in its fourth session, April 8, 1546) formally identified which writings are to be used in Roman Catholic congregations.20 Instead, in the early church there was simply a general recognition in several locales that some writings (in addition to the OT in the Septuagint translation) ought to be used and accepted as “Scripture.” These NT writings included the four Gospels, the letters of Paul, First John, and First Peter. These writings are called the homologoumena, a word meaning “agreed upon things.” Other writings that were not uniformly agreed upon and were “spoken against” by some Christian congregations and leaders are thus called the antilegomena (“spoken against things”). These writings that were questioned and even rejected by some, but later included in other canonical lists, include Hebrews, James, Jude, Second John, Third John, Second Peter, and Revelation (all of which were eventually included in later lists of the NT canon), and the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, and several other documents (which were eventually left out of those later lists). At this point, we need to draw attention to another movement in early Christianity that also influenced the formation of the Christian Bible, and this was Montanism (also called “The New Prophecy”).21 Originating in the second century in Phrygia (in present-day Turkey) and led by a man named Montanus and a few female prophets, it focused on the imminent outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church, which was claimed to be taking place already through the group’s prophets. The group also expected the imminent return of the Lord, the judgment of the world, and the coming consummation of the kingdom of God (all features of Christian “apocalypticism”). The group thus sought to revert to the initial spiritual fervor in earliest Christianity over against the growing institutionalized churches and their use of fixed Scriptures. Most importantly, in the eyes of non-Montanist Christians, the Montanists seemed 20. Tanner, 2.663–4. 21. For more details on this charismatic movement, see ODCC, 2.1298–1299.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

to be placing themselves above the Scriptures by emphasizing the authority of their immediate prophecies and spiritual utterances (and then appealing to previous biblical texts, such as the Gospel of John’s promise of the “Paraclete,” to claim that their movement was the fulfillment of Jesus’ own prophecies [cf. Jn 14-16]). In response, orthodox, catholic Christians began to insist on demarcating a borderline for a biblical canon, a guideline of Christian truth, “beyond which no teaching or preaching ought ever to pass. Most particularly, the composition of new authoritative writings was now thought of as outrageous presumption.”22 The writings of the Montanists, who claimed to be publishing inspired, normative prophecies, were therefore rejected by such important figures as Irenaeus and Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236). The latter was especially critical of the Montanists’ “innumerable books,” which, in his judgment, merely confused the minds of those who were unable to evaluate them and were unworthy of study by right-thinking people. In Hippolytus’ view, bewilderment falls upon the uninstructed when they “do not keep carefully to the Scriptures, but pay more heed to human traditions, to their own fancies, dreams, inventions, and old wives’ tales than to them.”23 Other bishops in the emerging Catholic Church agreed with his sentiment, and they joined Hippolytus in trying to stop the influence of Montanist and other spiritualist-apocalyptic writings. It was then only a matter of time for NT canons to become more narrowly prescribed among anti-Montanist, orthodox, catholic Christians. The first person to identify the 27 writings that would eventually be included in most NT canons was Athanasius (c. 296–373), bishop of Alexandria, whose 39th Festal Letter (written in AD 367) contains such a list. Nevertheless, that letter was not a formal decision of any church or official church body. It merely indicates for those who read it which NT writings were in use among mainstream Christians in Egypt at that time. While some of the antilegomena writings were eventually included in most postfourth-century Christian canonical lists, such as we see in Athanasius’ letter, they have a secondary, subordinate rank within the NT because of questions about their authorship and their contents. While the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were eventually excluded from the NT canon, they continued to be read and studied because their contents were consistent with orthodox, catholic teaching. But other antilegomena writings, including the so-called Gnostic writings and the Montanists’ texts, were completely rejected by mainstream Christian communities as contrary to the apostolic, normative, catholic, and orthodox gospel and thus not Scripture in any sense (save for those fringe groups that used them). Some contemporary scholars think this rejection was either wrong or fairly arbitrary. Among the most well-known of these is Elaine Pagels (b. 1943), a scholar of ancient 22. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, 230. 23. Hippolytus, as quoted by von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, 231.

293

294

Fundamental Theology

Christianity, who has written several books that help to shed light on the competing versions of Christianity that existed in the ancient world.24 One of her principal assertions is the claim that the attacks on Gnostic texts by orthodox theologians in the second and third centuries were the result of institutional and political factors in the early church and not primarily a matter of theological disagreement and conflict. She is particularly troubled that women, who were accepted as spiritual leaders in Gnostic-Christian circles, were marginalized and subordinated within the emerging catholic orthodoxy of these early centuries. This marginalization, too, was the result of political factors and not the result of theological concerns. Gerd Lüdemann (1946–2021) and Bart Ehrman (b. 1955), who are also NT scholars, have argued along similar lines.25 Like Pagels, they have built on the work of the German scholar Walter Bauer (1877–1960), who demonstrated that some early forms of Christianity, which were eventually deemed heretical at a later time, had been in fact quite popular in an earlier period.26 What would come to be called “orthodoxy” at a later time might have been a minority view in the early decades of Christianity and what came to be “heresy” (false teaching) in later decades might have been quite popular in earlier times. The line between “heresy” and “orthodoxy” is thus blurred for these scholars; they believe that what is “noncanonical” has just as much to tell us about early Christianity as those writings in the traditional biblical canon. A few other scholars assert that there is no good reason to think that the stories about Jesus in the canonical, biblical Gospels are any more historically reliable than the heretical versions.27 For example, Lüdemann flatly asserts, “The heretics of the second century, men and women, are at least as close to Jesus as the orthodox, and must be welcomed back into the church.”28 While there is much to learn about the complexity of early forms of Christianity from works like those written by Pagels and Ehrman, other scholars are not persuaded that the Gnostic Scriptures, with their alternative understandings of Jesus, are just as authoritative and normative and historically reliable as the central biblical texts. Even the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of “sayings of Jesus” likely composed in the second

24. See especially Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage, 1989). 25. See Gerd Lüdemann, Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996); and Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). 26. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Hersey in Early Christianity, ed. Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel, trans. Paul J. Achtemeier, Stephen Benko, Howard N. Bream, Robert F. Evans, David M. Hay, Robert A. Kraft, Gerhard Krodel, John J. O’Rourke, John E. Steely, David C. Steinmetz, and Robert L. Wilken (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). 27. Timothy Miller, “Book Review of Alternative Christs, ed. Olav Hammer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009),” Church History 80/1 (March 2011): 208. 28. Lüdemann, Heretics, 219.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

century, which may, in very small part, be based upon early traditions about Jesus, strikes many as fundamentally at odds theologically with the teaching and narrative structure of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).29 A careful theological comparison of the canonical texts and their stories with those that come from the later Gnostic and other apocryphal (“hidden”) writings must lead one to make a choice: either endorse the canonical or the apocryphal. They cannot be reconciled with each other since they present essentially contradictory portraits of Jesus and his significance. (Such a conclusion cannot and ought not minimize the significant differences between the portraits of the Jesus in the three Synoptic Gospels, on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, but these differences do not approach the radical disjuncture that exists between the canonical portraits of Jesus and the presentation of him and his teaching in the noncanonical texts such as the Gospel of Thomas.) Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943), a Roman Catholic scholar, takes a very different approach from Pagels, Lüdemann, and Ehrman.30 Johnson begins with questions about “Jesus in the memory of the church” and how the earliest apostolic preaching about Jesus had a distinct and normative shape already in the earliest decades of the post-resurrection Christian community (cf. 1 Cor. 15.1-11 and the kerygmatic speeches presented in the Acts of the Apostles [e.g., 10.34-44, 13.16-41, 17.22-31, 22.3-21]). This apostolic shape is evident in all four canonical Gospels, despite the differences among them. After exploring the canonical Gospels and the problems attendant to them, Johnson moves on to discuss how early Christians rejected some texts that claimed to be Christian but were not, marginalized some texts that were not necessarily heretical but were not canonical (e.g., the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache), and accepted others that had been widely used and were viewed as having a continuity with that earliest apostolic proclamation. Certainly there are good reasons to believe that the canonical stories about Jesus are generally more historically reliable than the stories in the Gnostic and apocryphal gospels (“hidden gospels,” almost all with Gnostic emphases). For one thing, the canonical texts are much closer historically to the source about which they communicate, and their connection to places tied to authentic apostolic tradition is much firmer. Moreover, the exclusion of Gnostic and heretical writings from the biblical canon involved more than mere political decisions. There were both historical 29. These three written Gospels are called the “Synoptic Gospels” (“viewed together”) because they can be examined side by side (“syn-optically”) and the resulting comparison of their respective outlines indicates many similarities, often verbatim agreement. By contrast, the Gospel of John has many structural and essential differences from the Synoptic Gospels. 30. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1997); and Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2000).

295

296

Fundamental Theology

and theological factors at play in that process of selection. The theological issues were particularly significant since these related to the nature of the gospel itself, as it had been delivered to the early church by the apostles and had been maintained by the faithful (1 Cor. 15.1-11, 11.2, 23; a similar idea is present in 2 Thess. 2.15). These biblical texts provide the earliest of theological and historical traditions about Jesus, and their general consistency suggests that they arose in the same way. Scholars who have investigated the development of the New Testament canon detect at least five principal criteria that were implicitly followed by early Christian communities to help them identify which were in continuity with authentic apostolic teaching and which conflicted with it.31 These criteria may be labeled today apostolicity, antiquity, orthodoxy, catholicity, and episcopacy. Together they helped to define what would come to be orthodox and catholic understandings of the gospel about Jesus. Apostolicity addressed the question of who wrote a given document. In order for a text to be considered authoritative it had to have been written or dictated by an apostle, or at least be understood to have direct continuity with the apostles’ teaching. For example, in the late first or early second century, Papias of Hierapolis (in Phrygia) wrote about his memories of early Christian traditions that make reference to Mark’s memories of what Peter proclaimed in Rome. Justin Martyr wrote about the Gospels as “memoirs” of the apostles. The letters of Paul were treated with respect because they originated from one who had a recognized claim to the title “apostle,” even though he himself had not been an eyewitness to the words and deeds of the earthly Jesus. The Gospel of Luke was favored because it was widely held to have been written by someone close to the apostle Paul or to traditions connected with Paul. In his Gospel Luke indicated that he was dependent upon traditions passed down by those who were direct “eyewitnesses” to the words and actions of Jesus (Lk. 1.1-4). A second criterion, closely related to the first, is the antiquity of a particular writing. The older, the better. Since all of the apocryphal gospels, with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas and another second-century writing, “the Infancy Gospel of James,” were written after AD 180, they fall far short of being in close proximity to the apostolic witness to the words and deeds of Jesus. Even if a writing claimed to have been written by an apostle, as most of the apocryphal and antilegomena writings did as well, if a writing was not known before the middle of the second century (such as was the case, e.g., with the NT writing called Second Peter), it ran into difficulties with the criterion of antiquity. Even a respected text like the Shepherd of Hermas was 31. See especially Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 251–7; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 255–69; cf. James A. Sanders and Harry Y. Gamble, “Canon,” ABD, 1.837–61; O’Collins, Rethinking Fundamental Theology, 244–253; and Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, 147–268.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

eventually excluded from the NT canon by many communities since it dated from the second century. A third criterion was orthodoxy or correct doctrine, that is, adherence to the regula fidei (“rule of faith”) as handed down orally and in writing by those who were “eyewitnesses” and “hearers of the word” (Lk. 1.1-4). Unless a book could be shown to conform or fit with the recognized teaching of the apostles, it was rejected. Gnostics who claimed to be “Christian” ran afoul of other Christians because the former held that the God of the OT was an inferior God to the Father of Jesus, that the god who created the world was an evil god, that the world is an evil creation from which one’s soul needs to escape, that Jesus was merely a revealer of secret knowledge about the human soul (“a spark of the divine” inside of a human being), that Jesus is only concerned about saving this “spark” inside of people, and that Jesus was not really human, and that he did not really die on the cross. Each of these teachings, contained in one or more of the Gnostic writings, was rejected as contrary to authentic apostolic teaching. A fourth criterion was catholicity, that is, how widespread was the usage of a text in worship, teaching, and spiritual edification. Some writings were accepted and used by nearly all who were called “Christian” in the first and early second centuries (the letters of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, First John, First Peter), whereas other writings (James, Hebrews, Revelation, Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and several others) were not as widely used. This lack of usage was itself often tied to doubts about the author(s) of these writings, about the antiquity of the writing, and about the content of their teaching. But even these secondary writings that were eventually accepted as canonical were better known and more widely circulated than those that emerged from Gnostic or Montanist or other small circles. The apocryphal writings fell far short of being as widely used as Pagels and Ehrman seem to suggest. A fifth criterion, related to the third criterion, is episcopacy, that is, the public succession of faithful bishops in certain key cities (Jerusalem, Antioch, Byzantium [later called Constantinople], Alexandria, and Rome) that became important in and after the second century. The early bishops in these key places were held to be a generally reliable means for transmitting apostolic texts and teaching (and the lists of authoritative Scriptures that were used in their respective churches), and to be reliable critics of alien texts, such as the apocryphal gospels, epistles, acts, and apocalypses. There were good reasons, including the sustained judgment of these highly respected leaders and overseers of the most prominent churches, for why Gnostic texts did not win wide acceptance in early Christianity, for why the canonical texts are understood to be more historically and theologically authentic than later texts that claim to be apostolic and ancient, and for why the biblical canon that eventually developed the way it did generally looks the way it does.

297

298

Fundamental Theology

The 27 Documents in the New Testament32 Probable Date of Composition The Gospel according to Matthew (H) The Gospel according to Mark (H) The Gospel according to Luke (H) The Gospel according to John (H) The Acts of the Apostles (H) Letter to the Romans (H) First Letter to the Corinthians (H) Second Letter to the Corinthians (H) Letter to the Galatians (H) Letter to the Ephesians (H) Letter to the Philippians (H) Letter to the Colossians (H) First Letter to the Thessalonians (H) Second Letter to the Thessalonians (H) First Letter to Timothy (H) Second Letter to Timothy (H) Letter to Titus (H) Letter to Philemon (H) Letter to the Hebrews (A) Letter of James (A) First Letter of Peter (H) Second Letter of Peter (A) First Letter of John (H) Second Letter of John (A) Third Letter of John (A) Letter of Jude (A) The Revelation of John (A)

80s–90s c. 70 80s to mid-90s 90s–100s (multiple editors) 80s–mid-90s Middle 50s-late 50s Middle 50s Middle 50s Middle 50s 60s (or 90s, if not by Paul) Middle 50s–early 60s Middle 50s (or 80s, if not by Paul) 50–51 Early 50s (or late first century, if not by Paul) 80s–100 80s–100 80s–100 Middle 50s–early 60s 80s 80s–90s 70s–90s 120s–140s c. 100 c. 100 c. 100 90s–100 Middle 90s

Figure 8.1  Documents in the New Testament.

Finally, if the apocryphal gospels are just as historically authentic (or inauthentic) as the canonical Gospels, then why do nearly all scholars who investigate the problem of the historical Jesus limit themselves to the canonical texts, even in view of the notoriously difficult nature of the canonical Gospels as primary sources for the historical Jesus? One preeminent scholar speaks for mainstream scholarship on this issue: I share the general scholarly view that very, very little in the apocryphal gospels could conceivably go back to the time of Jesus. They are legendary and mythological. Of all the apocryphal material, only some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are worth consideration. This does not mean that we can make a clean division: the historical four gospels versus the legendary apocryphal gospels. There are legendary traits in the four gospels in the New Testament, and there is also a certain amount of newly created

32. H = Homologoumon; A = Antilegomenon. The dating here comes from a mainstream NT scholar, Raymond Brown (1928–98), An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997).

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

material … Nevertheless, it is the four canonical gospels that we must search for traces of the historical Jesus.33

It is significant, too, that the first-century Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) included a small paragraph about Jesus in his history of the Jews.34 Although we cannot know for certain what Josephus actually wrote about Jesus, since that particular paragraph was tampered with by Christian scribes at a later time, Josephus does provide corroborating testimony that locates Jesus in time and space (in relation to the Roman official Pontius Pilate [who served as the governor of Judea between AD 26/27 and 36/37]), repeats the claims of others about Jesus’ “wonders” and teaching, testifies to his crucifixion by Pilate (about whom Josephus wrote more than he did about Jesus), and summarizes the basic claim by Jesus’ followers that Jesus had been raised from the dead. This limited information, recorded by a nonChristian historian who was a near contemporary of Jesus, generally fits with the central affirmations in the canonical Gospels, namely, that Jesus was reported to have done miraculous deeds, that he taught people, that he was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate, and that his followers reported him to have been raised from the dead three days after his death.35 For Christians today, only the homologoumena writings in the NT serve as the main source and norm of Christian teaching. These “agreed-upon” writings are the only authentic source for our knowledge of God’s historical self-revelation in Christ, since this could only be certified authentically by eye- and earwitnesses and second-generation “servants of the word” (Lk. 1.2; 1 Jn 1.1), and since we today have no access to the oral kerygma, but only to the literary testimony of these apostolic witnesses and their immediate followers. These writings articulate in a manifold way the one single apostolic gospel concerning Jesus. These central apostolic writings, in their witness to the gospel concerning Christ, are the only norm for the church’s total teaching, since the apostles themselves (via their reception of the Holy Spirit promised them by Christ) became organs for God’s self-revelation, and because all subsequent events that happen in the church must be guided and shaped by this 33. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin Press, 1993), 64–5; see also the complementary discussion by John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2009), 1.1–201, which takes one through the various sources for understanding the historical Jesus. 34. See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.63-4. We will examine this paragraph a little more closely in Chapter 10. 35. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, chap. 3, par. 3, in Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981), 379. “This paragraph, whose precise wording we do not know, is the best objective evidence of the importance of Jesus during his own lifetime” (Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 50). Josephus mentioned Jesus, but he gave more attention to Pilate, John the Baptizer, and other prophetic figures.

299

300

Fundamental Theology

revelation. It is clear, however, that not everything within the NT writings, even the homologoumena ones, is normative for all times and places, as Paul’s teaching about the eating of food offered to idols and the eating of blood makes clear (in contrast to the statement of James in Acts 15 regarding these practices). Such matters do not rise to the level of authoritative Christian teaching. The normative authority of the antilegomena texts remains a theological problem for today’s church, just as it did for the church of the second, third, and fourth centuries. Because there are legitimate concerns about the canonical character of some biblical writings, the canons used by Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants, which differ among themselves (at least with respect to the extent of the OT canon), cannot serve as the “rule and guiding principle” of Christian theology, nor is the totality of any one of these canonical lists “the pure, clear fountain of Israel,” as Martin Luther’s prefaces to the biblical books also make clear.36 Not every biblical book or biblical passage is of equal canonical, theological weight. Nevertheless, the canonicity of the majority of the NT writings is not in doubt. One needs to underscore that for Protestants the post-apostolic church did not and does not today determine the canonicity of the NT. There was no “light from above” stating, “Choose and use these writings and not these.” The Christian church has always been dependent upon the authority of the apostles, first in their oral teaching and witness and then in their written witness and the written witness of those who faithfully transmitted their teaching. Questions about the apostolic nature of some NT texts cannot be resolved by a decision of a church body. The church received its faithful teaching from the apostles, just as the apostles received their teaching from Christ through the power and revelation of the Holy Spirit. The decisive criterion for canonicity was the intimate bond between the content of a text and its origin: an apostolic text bears authentic and true witness to Christ, and an authentic, true witness to Christ originated from an apostle or the close follower(s) of an apostle. The authentically apostolic word is normative vis-à-vis the church. Some NT documents that claim to be apostolic and authoritative remain within the antilegomena and thus there is always the possibility that they are non-apostolic, noncanonical. In any case, the antilegomena are not central to Christian faith and teaching; they are subordinate to the homologoumena. The center of the canon, both historically and theologically, comprises the authentic letters of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel according to John, First John, and First Peter (which is Pauline in content and character). To be sure, some church groups have passed decrees at councils or meetings that define the biblical canon used in their church. As we noted earlier, the first time such an act was undertaken occurred in the sixteenth century, at the Council of Trent. 36. Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, “Preface,” BC, 527; Luther, “Prefaces to the Books of the Bible,” LW1, 35.235–411.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

Here the Roman Catholic Church defined the biblical canon as coterminous with the Latin Vulgate translation, a list that contains some apocryphal writings. Likewise, the Reformed churches developed their own list of canonical writings.37 These decisions are problematic, however, because of the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena. While the Lutheran Church has refrained from identifying an authoritative list of canonical writings, it has been concerned to maintain the ancient and venerable distinction between the homologoumena and antilegomena and to keep open the question about the margins of the canon. One cannot avoid the fact that the antilegomena within the NT itself present legitimate questions about their apostolicity, antiquity, catholicity, and especially their orthodoxy (e.g., James’s teaching about justification by works [Jam. 2.24]; the statement in Heb. 6.1-4 regarding the impossibility of repentance for those who have fallen away from the church; Jude’s statement about the archangel Michael contending with the devil about the body of Moses; many statements in Rev. that are prone to misunderstanding, etc.). It was because of questions about their possible nonorthodoxy that Luther famously passed judgment on some antilegomena books in the OT Apocrypha and in the NT (especially James, but also Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation). To be sure he did not exclude these antilegomena from his edition of the Bible, but it is interesting to note that his 1522 edition of the NT did not list these four writings in the table of contents, and that he placed these four writings themselves in the very back of the book on unnumbered pages! He clearly did not want people focusing too much attention on these writings, which he, like many ancient biblical scholars, thought contained some teachings that were at least inconsistent with authentic apostolic teaching, if not outright contradictory to the gospel. Consistent with mainstream judgments about the center of the biblical canon in early Christianity, Luther thought that the epistles of Paul, First Peter, First John, and the Gospel of John were “the true kernel and marrow of all the books,” although he regularly preached on the Synoptic Gospels and many OT books.38 Despite his support for the historic “canon within the canon” (i.e., the gospel itself as a norm within the biblical canon), Luther did not think of excluding every antilegomenon from his translation, nor did he reject the OT and the Apocrypha as being part of Scripture. (In the nineteenth century, Schleiermacher did in fact reject the OT as an authority for Christian theology.)39 But Luther did insist on the necessity of

37. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 13. 38. Luther, “Preface to the New Testament” (1522), LW1, 35.362. 39. Schleiermacher, CF, §27 (1.166–172). By contrast, Luther occasionally devoted himself to the interpretation of apocryphal texts, for example, Ecclesiasticus (see Luther, The Bondage of the Will, LW1, 33.117–25).

301

302

Fundamental Theology

acknowledging a distinction between the central biblical writings and those on the margins that could be legitimately criticized. Whereas most Lutheran and Reformed theologians since the sixteenth century have spoken about specific attributes of the Bible as whole, it is really more accurate to apply these traditional attributes only to the homologoumena writings of the NT and then, by extension, to the OT prophetic writings, which are interpreted by the apostolic writings of the NT. In relation to the purpose of these central biblical writings, their perfection resides in their sufficiency: they contain everything one needs to know in order to become knowledgeable about the nature and will of God, of the world as God’s creation, of human beings as sinful creatures of God who have been redeemed by Christ Jesus, and of the new creation that has dawned in Christ. In other words, these apostolic and prophetic writings alone are able to instruct a person in everything necessary for salvation and of the blessed life. “For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets, who wrote the canonical books.”40 In this sense, one may speak of the apostolic and prophetic writings as “the pure fount” from which flow all the articles of faith that together constitute the doctrinal content of the Christian faith. Likewise, the attribute of necessity also attaches to the homologoumena apostolic and prophetic writings, which are able to refute the errors of human beings with respect to the revealed truth of the gospel and the articles of faith that serve as corollaries to the gospel. Calvin put the matter succinctly: Without Scripture we fall into error. Suppose we ponder how slippery is the fall of the human mind into forgetfulness of God, how great the tendency of every kind of error, how great the lust to fashion constantly new and artificial religions. Then we may perceive how necessary was such written proof of the heavenly doctrine, that it should neither perish through forgetfulness nor vanish through error nor be corrupted by the audacity of men.41

Finally, the homologoumena apostolic and prophetic writings are clear in their teachings about the essential content of the faith. In other words, the truth of the gospel is plainly and clearly revealed in these writings and may be understood by most everyone who pays careful attention to them. While this teaching about the clarity or perspicuity of the apostolic and prophetic writings does not mean that everything within them is unambiguously clear or that one can avoid the need for careful historical-critical exposition of their contents, it does mean that the basic and essential teachings of the faith within these writings are not difficult, mysterious, or opaque. Whatever obscure passages are found in Holy Scripture are to be understood theologically in light of the unambiguously clear ones that serve as a guide to “the 40. Aquinas, ST, I.1.8, ad. 2. 41. Calvin, ICR, I.6.3 (1.72).

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

rule of faith and love.”42 This rule is the basis for the venerable interpretational principle, which will be further clarified in the next chapter, “Scripture interprets Scripture.”

The second main source: The Old Testament Whenever a writing in the NT canon refers to “Scripture,” it is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Christians traditionally call the Old Testament (OT). Already before the time of Jesus, the Jews had a collection of writings that they held in highest esteem as witnesses to the LORD’s salvific acts in history, his commands, and his promises. The historical development of the OT was even more complex than that of the NT, although by the time of Jesus its basic contents had been determined. (The process of finally closing the Hebrew biblical canon would not take place until after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70.) But the central books were often referred to collectively as “Scripture,” sacred writing. These central writings are the so-called “Books of Moses” (Genesis through Deuteronomy, which contain the “Law of Moses”) and the “Prophets,” a category that includes the so-called “historical” books (Joshua through Chronicles), the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), and the twelve minor prophets, as well as the Psalms and the Proverbs. The Book of Daniel, the only full-fledged apocalyptic text in the OT, was placed among the prophetic books (as in the Septuagint) or in the writings (as in the Hebrew canon). Other writings, including especially Esther and what would come to be called the OT Apocrypha, had been questioned and “spoken against” in the centuries prior to Jesus, and thus they were not as central for Jews (especially for those who did not read or use the Septuagint). Today, scholars recognize that the first five books of the OT (“the Pentateuch,” also called in Hebrew “the Torah” = “law,” “instruction”), are based on various circles of tradition that were combined and revised over several centuries and that reflect varying historical and theological perspectives. According to this theory, in the early monarchy of ancient Israel (c. 950 BC), after the formation of the kingship of David, a literary editor from Judah first organized Israelite traditions into a written epic. This Pentateuchal material is labeled “J” (the Yahwist source, from the first letter of the German spelling, “Jahweh”). Sometime later (c. 900–750 BC), an editor from North Israel organized other material that tells the story of Israel in a different way. This Pentateuchal material is labeled “E” (the Elohist source). In the seventh century (c. 621 BC), the Deuteronomic Code, or a version of Deuteronomy, was published, although this source also rests upon older traditions. Finally, about the time of the Exile, priestly writers set down their own traditions with material that had been

42. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 34.

303

304

Fundamental Theology

preserved by the Jerusalem priesthood. This Pentateuchal material is labeled “P” (the Priestly source). According to this theory, “J” and “E” were combined by an editor(s) around 650 BC, and “D” was added to “JE” by an editor(s) around 550 BC. The Priestly source was then added to JED by yet another editor(s) around 400 BC. While the dating of these various sources has been much debated since this theory was first argued persuasively by K. H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen in the nineteenth century, the basic theory of an evolutionary development of the Pentateuch has gained wide acceptance.43 The most basic promise contained in the Torah is the one to Abram, in Gen. 12.1-3: Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

One could say that this promise of blessing to Abram and, through him and his family, to all the other families or nations of the earth, sets forth the basic theme or even “plot” of the Bible as a whole. (The primeval stories [Gen. 1-11] that precede the call of Abram serve to set the context for God’s Abrahamic covenant.) God’s intention, according to Gen. 12.3, is to bring divine blessing to the earth through the family and descendants of Abram (who is later called “Abraham,” which means “father of a multitude”). The patriarchal narratives that follow continue to expand upon this basic theme of God’s special relationship and promise to Abram/Abraham and to his immediate heirs: Isaac (his son) and Jacob (his grandson, who is later given the name “Israel,” which means “he who wrestles with God”). The “Israelites” are thus the descendants of Jacob. In a certain sense, the Bible is the “family story” of Abram and his descendants, which, for Christians, culminates with Jesus, “son of Abraham” (Mt. 1.1). The next section of the Pentateuch tells of the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt, through the leadership of Moses, of the establishment of the covenant at Mt. Sinai (sometimes called “the Mosaic Covenant”), the giving of the law and the statutes of the covenant, as well as the LORD’s further dealings with the people of the covenant. One of the most important Old Testament scholars of the twentieth century, Gerhard von Rad (1901–71), pointed to basic statements in the Pentateuch that underscore the centrality of this salvific action of God.44 According to von Rad, these statements function like “creeds” or “confessions,” which remind the people of what is most important about the community’s history and identity. One such statement is found in Deut. 26.5-9: 43. Cf. Richard Elliott Friedman, “Torah (Pentateuch),” ABD, 6.605–22. 44. von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 1.121–35.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

A wandering Aramean was my ancestor [= Abram and his descendants]; he went down into Egypt [“he” = Jacob/Israel and his children] and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous. When the Egyptians treated us harshly and afflicted us, by imposing hard labor on us, we cried to the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. The LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with a terrifying display of power; and with signs and wonders; and he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.

Other examples of this type of credal statement are found in Deut. 6.20-24, Josh. 12.1-13, and also Exod. 15.1-18, a hymn celebrating Israel’s exodus from slavery, that may be the oldest piece of writing in the OT (a hymn that celebrates Israel’s exodus from slavery). The prophetic writings in the second section of the OT reminded the people of ancient Israel (the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom) of the LORD’s covenant at Sinai, as well as of his promises to Abram and David (see especially 2 Sam. 7.4-17, where the LORD says to David, through the prophet Nathan, “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever”). It was this Davidic promise that had been called into question through the destruction of Israel (in 721 BC) and later the destruction of Judah (in 587/586 BC). The prophets interpreted these destructions as the result of the peoples’ transgressions, that is, of their failure to keep the Sinai covenant. The destructions, as the prophets saw them, were a consequence of God’s judgment against sin and covenantal unfaithfulness. But these biblical prophets also announced God’s new promises, based on his fundamental covenant with Abraham and the divine promise to King David. God would be doing a new thing in the future for his covenantal people, actions that would surpass what God had done for them in the past. (Mt. 1.1 and other NT texts also identify Jesus as a “son of David.”) Some of the writings of the later biblical prophets (Isa. 24-27; Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel) and some noncanonical texts (1 and 2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 and 3 Baruch) contain what is called “biblical apocalyptic.” While this type of writing generally declined in Judaism after the first century BC, it flourished in the early Christian church into the medieval period. The key apocalyptic writing in the NT is the last book, called Revelation (“the Apocalypse” = “the unveiling,” “the revelation”). Such texts mediate mysterious unveilings or revelations that have to do with the end of history. In Greek, the word for “end” is “eschaton.” So sometimes scholars refer to these writings as “eschatological” texts, that is, they have to do with the revelation of the end of history (usually in the context of great world historical crises). Apocalyptic literature often divides all of history into periods or eons. The period before the end of the world is marked by terrible catastrophes and tremendous upheavals. Apocalyptic writings also speak about the transformation of God’s fallen creation, about God’s

305

306

Fundamental Theology

judgment of the world, and about the vindication of the righteous in the resurrection from the dead. To the two main sections of the OT (the “Law” and the “Prophets”) was added the third (the “Writings”), the core of which is the Psalter and the Proverbs. Many of the Psalms contain Israelite responses to God’s historic acts of salvation and judgment, but they also call upon God to act favorably in the present toward his covenantal people. Such psalms recount God’s mighty deeds of old, especially the exodus from Egypt (e.g., Pss. 44, 77, 78, 80, 106, 107, 135) or they remind God of his promises to Abram and to David (e.g., Pss. 2, 47, 89, 105, 132). Still other psalms and proverbs praise the LORD as the Creator of the world, who is the fount of all earthly wisdom and knowledge (e.g., Pss. 8, 19, 33, 65, 82, 104, 119, 145; Prov. 8). At least a few of the writings contained in this third section of the OT (e.g., Job, Ecclesiastes) also wrestle with seemingly unjust suffering and the apparent futility of life. We need to underscore: Jesus was a Jew, as were his earliest followers. His public actions took place in the context of first-century Palestinian Judaism, which was also the initial setting of primitive Christianity. This connection to Judaism is not an historical accident, as Marcion and other Gnostics asserted. Rather, according to the manifold testimony of the apostolic literature (which is our only access to the apostolic witness), that connection is a purposeful one, for the apostles claimed that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s messianic promises, which are embedded in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus is said to be the ultimate fulfillment of God’s original covenant with Abram and his descendants, including King David. As such, Jesus is the author and perfector of the new covenant that had been promised to ancient Israel. Moreover, Jesus, his disciples, and the primitive church acknowledged the central books of the Hebrew Bible (the ones in the first two sections of it) as “Scripture” or “the Scriptures,” and Jesus and his followers used other designations for these Scriptures as well, for example, “the Law and the Prophets,” “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalter,” or sometimes just “the Law.” Jesus frequently quoted these Scriptures favorably (Mt. 4.4-16; Lk. 24.27) and affirmed, according to the Gospel of John, that “the Scriptures [the OT] cannot be annulled” (Jn 10.35; cf. Mt. 5.17-18).45 There is 45. Cf. the RSV translation of Jn 10.35: “and scripture cannot be broken.” What is said here (probably by the Gospel writer) simply means that the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures cannot be “set aside” or “nullified.” See Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, ed. G. R. Beasley-Murray, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 389. Of course, Jesus got into trouble with the Jewish authorities, who accused him of breaking, annulling, or setting aside the OT Scriptures and claiming an authority above the law of Moses (cf. Jn 5.18, 10.33), as he did in his teaching in Mt. 5-7 (“but I say to you”), in Mk 7 (annulling the diet restrictions in the law of Moses), in his actions on the sabbath and at the temple, etc. Of course, some NT texts teach that Jesus has brought the law to its “end,” thus “fulfilling” it by “abolishing” it (cf. Rom. 10.4; Eph. 2.15).

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

no indication from the NT texts that Jesus or the apostles ever intended the Hebrew Scriptures to be supplemented with additional writings. Paul, for example, simply wrote ad hoc letters to the congregations he had founded. His epistles, which are the oldest writings in the NT, merely served as “stand-ins” for his personal presence and his oral proclamation and instruction. So in light of these factors, to refer to the OT as a “second main” source of Christian theology needs careful clarification. The only sacred Scriptures that Jesus knew and read were the Jewish Scriptures that were regularly used in Palestinian synagogues for centuries prior to his birth. All of his initial followers treasured and read these same Scriptures. But with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the subsequent rise of Gentile (non-Jewish) Christianity, the nature and application of the traditional Hebrew Scriptures changed within both Judaism and Christianity. Some significant portions of the Hebrew Scriptures that provided instructions and commentary on cultic (“worship”) practices, especially relating to sacrifices, no longer could be strictly heeded in either Judaism or in Jewish Christianity after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (where sacrifices had been offered). Other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, again largely but not exclusively relating to cultic practices, were criticized by Jesus himself and later by Paul and other apostles; these were viewed by later Gentile Christians as no longer normative for their own faith and practice. Nevertheless, even these passages were often still interpreted by Christians in figurative, typological, and other theological ways to be references to Jesus and his death on the cross. Despite the many quotations from the OT in the NT, the OT is not the principal source of Christian theology. The main reason for this assessment is the fact that the apostolic NT witness is critical of some teachings and practices from the OT. In other words, apostolic criticism of the OT Scriptures and their nonbinding authority upon Gentile Christians serves as a canon or norm over against the OT. Such criticism and abrogation of at least some parts of the Mosaic law is already evident in the Hebrew prophets themselves (compare, e.g., Deut. 23.1-8 with Isa. 56.3-8), but becomes more explicit in the witness to Jesus’ words and actions within the canonical Gospels. The authority of Jesus over the Jewish law is the central indication that the OT law would have a subordinate and even inoperative authority for Christians, both Jewish and Gentile. Jesus did not always enforce or keep the scriptural laws from the OT. For example, according to the witness of John, Jesus forgave the woman who was caught in adultery (Jn 7.53-8.11; cf. Deut. 22, which clearly teaches that such a woman should have been killed) and, according to Mark, Jesus “declared all foods clean” and thus rightly edible (Mk 7; cf. the diet laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, which list those foods that are not to be eaten). On occasion, Jesus himself broke the Mosaic law (= “making himself unclean”) by talking with a Samaritan woman alone (Jn 4; cf. Lev. 15.19-24), eating with sinners and tax collectors, touching lepers, and loving Gentile “enemies.”

307

308

Fundamental Theology

On these occasions, Jesus did not “keep” or “fulfill” what the Jews understood to be the divinely given, clearly stated written Word of God in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The statement in Matthew (5.17) about Jesus “fulfilling” the law can only mean that Christ has fulfilled the law by bringing it to an end or conclusion (as Paul states in Rom. 10.4). Now that Jesus has accomplished all things, the OT law as law has been abrogated and brought to its termination. In the words of John, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1.17). So, despite Jesus’ recognition of the authority of the OT Scriptures, by correcting and even transgressing the Mosaic law, he in fact claimed an authority that was higher than that of Moses. That Paul proclaimed Jesus as “the end of the law” (Rom. 10.4) supports this claim. The authoritative apostolic writings—whose center remains the writings of Paul, First Peter (which is actually Pauline in character and content), First John, and the canonical Gospels—teach that the OT law has now been set aside for Gentiles. For example, Paul teaches that one does not sin by working on the sabbath, that circumcision is unnecessary, and that one can eat whatever food is set before one without sinning, even though the OT clearly states that one is to keep the sabbath laws, that circumcision is necessary, that some foods are unclean, and that one does in fact sin if one eats those foods (cf. Gal. 3.25-26; Rom. 4.14-15; and Eph. 2.15-16). The Greek verb that is used in this latter passage, katargeo, means “to invalidate, to make powerless, to cause something to come to an end or to be no longer in existence, abolish, wipe out, set aside.”46 Paul forcibly states: “For freedom [from the OT law], Christ has set you free; don’t be yoked again [to the Mosaic law]” (Gal. 5.1). Paul’s whole argument in Galatians is against those who insisted that followers of Jesus must abide by the rules and laws that were given in the OT. See also Phil. 3.2-4, which was written against those who insisted upon the normative validity of the OT law of circumcision for Gentile Christians, and Col. 2:20, which was written against those who insisted on obedience to Jewish regulations that are given in the OT. By faith in Christ one is “not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6.15). “[Y]‌ou have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God” (Rom. 7.4). “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (Rom. 7.6). Christ is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified (Rom. 10.4). Through the law the Christian has died to the law, so that Christ may replace the law with the Holy Spirit. “Now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,” that is, to the law (Gal. 3.25). “The law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3.24). Christ has “abolished

46. BDAG, 525–6.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

[abrogated, destroyed] the law with its commandments and ordinances” (Eph. 2.15), and he did so through his death on the cross, thus making peace between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2.15-16). The normative authority that the OT has for Christian theology, then, is secondary and dependent upon the authority of the homologoumena writings in the NT. The apostolic preaching about Christ alone identifies what is normative for Christian faith within the OT prophetic and wisdom texts. One can speak of the prophetic writings of the OT, inclusive of all of the books within the Hebrew canon, as normative and as a source that is subordinate to the apostolic preaching only because the apostolic witness to Christ, given in the apostolic writings, identifies what is normative within that OT witness for Christian faith. For Christian theology, the content of the OT is only understandable on the basis of the content of the apostolic witnesses: The God of Israel is the Father of Jesus Christ, and the Scriptures of Israel contain promises about Christ. But not everything in the OT pertains to Christian faith, since much in the law of Moses was only directed to the original covenant people of ancient Israel in their historical situation of nationhood.47 While Lutheran Christians have generally been favorably disposed toward the wisdom that is contained in some of the so-called “Apocryphal” or “Deuterocanonical” texts of the OT (e.g., Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, etc.), which are included in the Bibles of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, other Protestants reject these writings, as do Jews.48 One must put forth a very important cautionary note at precisely this point. Already in the second century, Marcion and Gnostic Christians rejected the Hebrew Bible entirely. They asserted that the God of Israel is a different god from the Father of Jesus. Christian anti-Semitism throughout history has also disparaged and rejected the OT, just as it has led Christians to act violently toward Jews. For example, some

47. Christians must make a distinction between the authority of the law, which has been abolished for them on account of Christ, and the abiding validity of the law for Jews today. While Christians will insist that Jesus has abolished the authority of the law, it does not follow that Judaism itself, as a living faith, has been abolished. 48. The Roman Catholic Vulgate includes Tobit, Judith, additions to the book of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Jesus Sirach), Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, additions to the book of Daniel, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. 1 Esdras (= 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [where 1 and 2 Esdras refer to EzraNehemiah]), 2 Esdras (= 4 Esdras in the Vulgate), and the Prayer of Manasseh are included in the Vulgate’s appendix. While Luther left out 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras (“they contain nothing that one could not find better in Aesop or in still slighter works”), he did include, in an appendix to his 1534 translation of the complete Bible, the other apocryphal books listed earlier. “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read” (Luther, “Prefaces to the Bible,” LW1, 35.337). Calvin and the Reformed tradition excluded the Apocrypha and restricted the Old Testament canon to those books in the Hebrew Bible. Beyond the twentyseven traditional books in the NT, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes additional books in its New Testament canon, including material about “church order” from the Apostolic Constitutions and the letters of Clement.

309

310

Fundamental Theology

racist, anti-Semitic “German Christians” (Deutsche Christen) in Nazi Germany called for the complete rejection of the OT, as have other theologians in the history of Christian thought.49 The racist ideology of the nazified German Christians, which attacked the OT and “the Jew Paul” and which falsified Jesus into an “Aryan” non-Jew, was used by some Christians to attack European Jews, and those attitudes contributed directly to the Holocaust. This fact cannot be ignored or downplayed. Post-Holocaust Christian theology must be aware of these terrible connections, including the close connection between a negative hostility against the Hebrew Scriptures and negative actions toward Jews in history. Nothing is uglier and more disturbing in Martin Luther’s writings than his late-in-life, hate-filled polemics against the Jews. These writings and Luther’s anti-Semitism have been rightly condemned and rejected by contemporary Lutheran churches and theologians.50 So mainstream Christian theology is emphatically grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures even if it is not entirely normed by those Scriptures. Marcion’s view and the Gnostic disparagement of the OT were rightly rejected by the early church. The rejection of the OT by the “German Christians” has also been rightly condemned, as has their blatant racism and anti-Semitic hatred and violence. Christians today need to recognize both the integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures as Jewish Scriptures, because they bear witness to the one, true, living God, the Creator of all, and the important role that the Hebrew Scriptures play in bearing witness to the coming Messiah. On the one hand, the Hebrew Scriptures are normative in their revelation of the Creator and the Creator’s divine law that is addressed to every human being and not merely to the ancient covenant people of Israel in their cultic life. On the other hand, whereas many Jews still await the promised Jewish Messiah, Christians believe he has already arrived. Thus, Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures with a perspective that is shaped by the historic apostolic witness to Jesus as the fulfillment of the divine promise of the coming Messiah. So Christian theological understanding is grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures but normed by the apostolic witness to Jesus, a witness that also interprets key sections of the Hebrew Scriptures from the viewpoint that Jesus is the Messiah. What is normative for Christians within those Scriptures,

49. Not all Christians in Germany during the time of Hitler and Nazism (1933–45) were “German Christians” (Deutsche Christen). The latter sought to change the content and practice of the Christian faith to accord with Nazi nationalist and racist ideals. They combined the cross of Christ and the swastika of Hitler, they watered down the historic content of Christianity, and they worked against those Christians in Germany who opposed the introduction of Nazi ideology into the Protestant churches there. See Doris Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich, 2nd edn (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996). 50. For criticism of Luther’s anti-Semitism, see Matthew L. Becker, “Luther and the Holocaust” (https://mat​ thew​lbec​ker.blogs​pot.com/2017/06/lut​her-and-holoca​ust.html).

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

especially the prophets and the Psalms, provides a clarifying witness to God’s selfrevelation as Creator, Law-giver, and Messiah-sender. Before turning to some additional sources for Christian theology, we should note that none of the original manuscripts of the OT and NT have survived to the present. We are thus dependent on copies of those initial writings, albeit very old copies. Moreover, both OT and NT writings were translated into other languages of the ancient Near East, and copies of these versions are available to us. Through the discipline of textual criticism, biblical scholars have been able to establish rather accurate texts for both the OT and the NT.51 There are more than 5,000 manuscripts that contain all or portions of the NT writings, more than exist for any other ancient literary work. While the texts produced by the original writers and editors are no longer extant, scholars have been able to determine the best, most accurate texts that can be reconstructed. In other words, through careful textual criticism, scholars have been able to determine with great accuracy the essential contents of the original biblical documents. We may be confident that the essential revelations of law and gospel, as well as the central articles of faith, remain clear in the Scriptures. Finally, we should note that scholarly editions of the Bible in English contain helpful textual notes, which identify those places in the Bible where there is some uncertainty about the original wording.52 But these problematic passages are relatively few in number, and none of them touch on the central articles of the Christian faith. As a general principle, students of the Scriptures should only use reliable translations, which can then be compared with one another.

Subordinate sources Those who subscribe to the teaching of the Formula of Concord (1577), which is one of the evangelical-Lutheran confessional writings, confess their adherence “to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments, as to the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which alone is the one true guiding principle, according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged and evaluated.”53 It is important to note that the Formula of Concord does not identify which books belong in the category of “the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments.” The canonical limits are left open with respect to the antilegomena. It is also worth noting that while the Formula describes these unnamed Scriptures as “the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which alone is the one true guiding principle,” it does not identify them 51. See the excellent entry on “Texts, Versions, Manuscripts, Editions” in the Harper’s Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985), 1037–53. 52. See the list of scholarly editions of the Bible that appears at the end of Chapter 9. 53. Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, “Concerning the Succinct Summary, Basis, Rule, and Guiding Principle,” BC, 527.

311

312

Fundamental Theology

as the sole source of theology. The principle that governs teaching is thus singular and clear, but other resources may be called upon. Moreover, even passages in the homologoumena texts require careful interpretation for the sake of true theological understanding, a process that involves other, subordinate sources. Accordingly, the apostolic writings of the NT are the first main source of Christian theology and provide the sole norm of theology in their witness to the apostolic gospel. The canonical writings of the OT, especially the Psalms and the prophets, are the second main source of theology. Together, the apostolic and prophetic writings are the “one true guiding principle” for Christian faith and teaching. While Scripture alone is the sole norm of Christian faith and life, Scripture is never alone. Several additional sources also serve and assist the theological task. The first and most important of these other sources is church tradition, which comprises the handing on of apostolic writings, the history of biblical interpretation, and the history of dogmatic decisions made at early ecumenical councils. While the essential doctrinal content of the Christian faith is grounded solely in the prophetic and apostolic writings of the OT and NT, it is nonetheless insufficiently articulated and clarified in these writings. The church has thus found itself in the position of having to define its faith, sometimes over against false teaching, as happened in and through the articulation and acceptance of the Nicene Creed (AD 325), and sometimes for the sake of brevity in a sacramental and liturgical context, as happened in and through early baptismal creeds and especially the Apostles’ Creed (at least in Western Christianity). The meaning of any biblical writing is in some sense contained within the history of its interpretation, and thus carefully constructed and examined church history is a more or less implicit source of Christian theology insofar as it sheds light on how the church has understood the Scriptures over time. This is especially true since no one can honestly jump over two thousand years and become contemporaneous with the biblical writings themselves. The earlier wrestling with the biblical texts by principal thinkers in the Christian tradition helps to clarify how biblical doctrines have been understood and articulated over the centuries. While church councils and individual Christian theologians can and have erred and contradicted one another, their theological and interpretational decisions have had a profound influence on the formulation (and reformulation) of church doctrine. These decisions invite repeated reinvestigation. Within the Lutheran tradition, the confessional writings of Luther and Melanchthon, especially Luther’s catechisms and the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, have served as normative exposition of the doctrinal content of the Holy Scriptures for those churches that subscribe to these confessional writings. Within the churches of the Augsburg Confession, the Lutheran confessional writings are not held to be on the same level of authority as the Holy Scriptures, but they are understood to be a faithful presentation of the doctrinal teachings of the whole of

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

Holy Scripture in relation to the heart of the Scriptures, namely, their witness to the saving gospel of Christ. Moreover, these teachings are not understood to be the private perspective or possession of Lutheran Christians, but the basic and universal teachings of the whole catholic and orthodox Christian church: Resting on Scripture as a whole, the Confessions aim to summarize the multiplicity of statements from Scripture in doctrinal articles directed against the errors of their day and designed for the protection of the correct proclamation then and for all time to come … This fact, that here the church (not an individual) witnesses to the sum of Scripture (not an incidental exegetical discovery), is the basis for the claim of the Confessions that they are the norm according to which the thinking and speaking of the believers is to be tested and determined. Specifically, they claim to be the obligatory model of all of the church’s preaching and teaching. This claim admits of no limits, either of time or of space.54

In the case of the churches of the Augsburg Confession, then, the claim is that the doctrinal articles in that particular Confession summarize the faith of the entire one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and are not merely a sectarian statement of faith from the “Lutheran” Church (a designation that is itself repudiated in the evangelical confessions).55 A similar claim to catholicity and orthodoxy is also made by other churches in their catechisms and confessional writings.56 These confessions must be taken seriously and examined carefully and critically against Holy Scripture. The various confessional writings of the divided churches cannot be placed above the Scriptures, but must be investigated themselves to see if they accord with the theological content of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures. Thus, ecumenical discussion and attention to how Christian groups throughout the world understand the Scriptures, as summarized in their creeds, confessions, and catechisms, are essential aspects of theological understanding. These documents serve as ancillary sources of theology, since they seek to clarify the content of the Christian faith and the witness to the truth of the gospel. The intent of every engagement with a particular church confession, creed, or catechism ought to be to discern what is central and living within a Church’s faith, and what might be of marginal importance 54. Edmund Schlink, The Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, trans. Paul F. Koehneke and Herbert J. A. Bouman (St. Louis: Concordia, 1961), xvi–xvii. A new translation of this study will be published as the fourth volume in ESW. 55. The term Lutheran was initially a pejorative word that was coined by Luther’s opponents. Only gradually did the term gain acceptance among those who adhered to the teaching of the Augsburg Confession. 56. See, for example, The Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Sadlier, 1994), 5–6; the ThirtyNine Articles of the Anglican communion and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886, 1888, in the Book of Common Prayer (New York: Church Hymnal Association, 1979), 867–78 (cf. the entry on the Thirty-Nine Articles in ODCC, 2.1928–9); and “The Confessional Nature of the Church Report,” in The Book of Confessions (Louisville: Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church [USA]), 1999), xvi.

313

314

Fundamental Theology

or historically conditioned, to celebrate agreement, and to engage in further dialogue on those matters about which there is still disagreement. A further source for Christian theology is the history of religions and cultures that have affected and shaped both the content of the writings in the OT and NT and the formulation of Christian doctrine in the history of the Christian churches. Tillich was correct to stress that the biblical message cannot be understood and could not have been received had there been no preparation for it in human culture. Language, poetry, philosophy, religious concepts—all of these have had an effect on the expression of biblical ideas and thus are important, though subordinate, sources/resources for the formulation of doctrine.57 To understand the biblical texts, it is necessary to consult other extra-biblical resources, which serve to clarify the meaning of the biblical texts. These extra-biblical sources of knowledge from the Ancient Near East can help to eliminate false and inadequate understandings of the biblical texts. For example, they help to discern the various genres and linguistic forms in the biblical texts (e.g., Gen. 1-11), which bear similarities to genres and forms in the non-biblical religious texts from the ancient world, and thus they help to avoid the misinterpretation of the Scriptures.58 A final source is contemporary human experience, including scientific knowledge and cultural interpretations of human experience, which shape and inform the language and thought forms that are used to articulate and effectively communicate the essential content of Christian faith in particular, temporal, cultural, social contexts. While the prophetic and apostolic texts alone serve as the judge and rule of doctrine and theology, Scripture is never alone: it is always interpreted in specific contexts, which themselves shape the formulation of doctrine and the expressions used in Christian theology. All listeners and readers of the Scriptures, even the most anti-modern and fundamentalist of them, are embedded in social, cultural, and theological contexts that shape and inform their listening and reading of the Scriptures and that shape the manner in which they articulate and communicate the essential content of Christian faith. One example will demonstrate this point. Historical investigation of the biblical texts, coupled with an understanding of contemporary cosmological knowledge, serves to clarify the nature of the Christian doctrine of creation. In this light one must conclude that the Christian doctrine of creation does not entail the acceptance of biblical expressions of cosmology as literal descriptions of fact, such as the outdated view that the earth is immovable or that it rests on pillars or that the world was created over the course of six actual days in the recent past. The limiting power or

57. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.34–40. 58. James L. Bailey and Lyle D. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992).

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

clarifying power of these additional extra-biblical sources/resources thus shapes the formulation of church teaching.

The principal norm: The gospel of Jesus Christ The apostolic writings in the NT make clear that the principal norm of Christian faith is the gospel concerning Jesus the Christ. All authentic Scripture bears witness to Christ alone in service to faith alone in him. All authentic Scripture turns about Christ as its authentic center. He is its proper and central content and the gospel about him is its norm. This is often called “the canon within the canon,” since the gospel about Jesus Christ serves as the sole standard for the theological interpretation of Scripture. Thus, all Scripture, both the OT and the NT, both the homologoumena and the antilegomena, must be interpreted in relation to Jesus Christ and the gospel about him. From the perspective of the apostles (Lk. 24), the entirety of the Scriptures is only understood in relation to Christ. While one cannot force a christological interpretation on texts that cannot bear such an interpretation, the essential content of any given section of Scripture is always properly defined in relation to Holy Scripture’s overall basic witness to Jesus. Every authentic, homologoumena scriptural book presents the clear gospel, yet not every biblical writing (inclusive also of the antilegomena) presents the gospel to the same extent or with the same clarity. Luther has given this gospel-norm its classic expression: All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [German: treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which we judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ (Rom. 3.21); and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (1 Cor. 2.2). Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.59

This gospel principle or “canon within the canon” was not Luther’s invention. It is found already in the apostolic Scriptures themselves, especially the letters of Paul to the Galatians, the Philippians, and the Romans. Even Jesus himself seems to have operated with something similar, at least according to the apostolic witness. Within John’s Gospel, Jesus says to the scribes, the biblical scholars of his day, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me” (Jn 5.39 [RSV]). According to the apostolic witness, “To [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness through his name” (Acts 10.43 [RSV]). And the Gospel of Luke reports that Jesus,

59. Luther, “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude” (1522), LW1, 35.396.

315

316

Fundamental Theology

after his resurrection, explained to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus how all the Scriptures testify to himself and his work: Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them all the things about himself in all the Scriptures. … Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations.” (Lk. 24.27, 45-47)

The Scriptures thus have a plain central thrust. But if a person comes to the Bible with any other issue in mind, beyond this one about preaching and teaching the righteousness of Christ for repentance and faith, then indeed the Bible remains opaque and unclear. It devolves into an oppressive book of laws, much as it had become in the use of the Hebrew Bible by some interpreters in the time of Jesus, or it becomes a mere collection of disparate historical documents from the ancient world. Apart from its use in witness to Christ and the good news about him, Scripture can easily be turned into a “wax nose,” that is, its “face” can be changed and distorted in many ways by an arbitrary interpretation, even one that claims to be “historical” and “without illusion.” As has already been noted in previous chapters, the prophetic and apostolic writings actually teach and proclaim two basic, distinct messages from God, the law and the gospel. These two biblical messages are not identical and must be distinguished from each other. Both are valid and true; both come from God; both are found in both testaments; yet each is quite different from the other. The differentiation between the law and the gospel as a basic rule for the interpretation of Scripture is still another way of articulating the canon within the canon, the norm or standard within the biblical writings that allows the writings to be properly understood so that their proclamation is in service to Jesus Christ as the living Word of God. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus directed solely to our behavior and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, he has let him be put to death for your sake …” For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God, and not—as in the case of the law—what we are to do and give to God.60

The law thus accuses and judges sinners under the wrath of God, while the gospel forgives and acquits sinners for Christ’s sake. For this reason the law is always God’s “alien word” (verbum alienum), not his primary action, while the gospel is God’s “proper word” (verbum proprium), the main message in God’s address to human 60. Luther, How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525), LW1, 35.162.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

beings. While both words are found in both testaments, the law predominates in the Old and the gospel predominates in the New. Christ brings to light the hidden presence of the gospel in the OT and actualizes the gospel promises foretold in the prophets and OT writings. He makes clear that the law, sin, and death have met their match. These two words of God, both true, nonetheless cannot remain at peace with each other in the life of the individual person. “The letter [RSV: “the written code”] kills but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3.6). The letter is not a word of “good news” to humans, for it is the word of God’s judgment and wrath against the sinner. The Spirit, however, is a good word, the good word, because it is the word of God’s grace and forgiveness for the sinner because of Christ. There is thus conflict in the sinner/believer who hears both words. The one who hears them is caught in a struggle between the old age (“the age of the law”) and the new age (“the age of grace”). The law says to sinners, “You are damned under the just judgment of God.” The gospel, however, says, “You are forgiven for Christ’s sake. I have damned him so that you might live. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ.” He—and he alone!—has put to death the accusing word of the law. This conflict between “the letter that kills and the Spirit that gives life” results in several consequences. One consequence is a paradoxical understanding of the human being’s standing before God. Under the law, the human being is a sinner and under the wrath of God, but under the gospel, in Christ, the person is righteous and full of the Spirit and under grace. To use yet another Augustinian phrase, the sinner in Christ is simul justus et peccator (“at the same time just and a sinner”), a total sinner and yet totally righteous at the same time. The distinction between the law and the gospel leads to a paradoxical anthropology: one and the same human being is both judged and forgiven by God. Another consequence of this conflict is that these two words of God, the law and the gospel, must always be distinguished and never identified or confused in biblical interpretation, even though both messages might be tightly wound together in the same passage of Scripture. This is a most difficult task, to distinguish the law properly from the gospel, for the sake of creating and sustaining faith in Christ who has triumphed over God’s just judgment. Ultimately the basis for Christian faith is that the word of the law is overcome by the message of the gospel, “the word of faith that we proclaim” (Rom. 10.9). This latter word of the Lord “lasts forever.” “That word is the good news that was proclaimed to you” (1 Pet. 1.25). There is also a consequence of this gospel understanding for Christian theology. The gospel is not merely one teaching among many others. Rather, the gospel is the key and central article of faith that illumines all other articles. The gospel is the divine promise that for Christ’s sake God will not ultimately judge and damn the sinner, but forgive the sinner and welcome the individual into God’s family.

317

318

Fundamental Theology

Dealing with any doctrine in a formally correct manner is never enough unless we also express the proper distinction between law and gospel in the double nature of God’s activity as well as our twofold relationship to God as people who are both judged and who have experienced mercy. Precisely here we become most clearly aware of the powerful dynamic that flows through Luther’s theological work. At the same time we can now begin to see that the simple theoretical assertion that Scripture alone is the authority in theology says really very little.61

Questions for review and discussion











1. The author argues that there are multiple sources for theology but only a single norm. Do you agree? What is the difference between a “source” of theology and a “norm” for theology? Is it always easy to distinguish these two resources in Christian theology? 2. At one end of the theological spectrum are various kinds of revisionist theologies (Tracy, Kaufman, Hodgson, McFague). At the other end of the spectrum would be the kind of fundamentalist theology represented by Pieper. Toward which end of the spectrum do you lean? Why? 3. Describe how the author understands biblical authority. Do you agree or disagree with this position? From a conservative Protestant perspective that leans in the direction of Pieper, the author’s position on the authority of Scripture will likely be criticized as inadequate. Why might that be the case? How would you improve the author’s position? What changes would be required? Do you agree or disagree with the view that Christian faith will stagger if the authority of the Sacred Scriptures wavers? 4. What are various meanings for the biblical expression “word of God?” Why does the author argue that the Bible cannot be strictly identified with “the word of God?” How does the author think the written Scriptures are related to the word of God in its multiple meanings? How do you understand this relationship? 5. What’s the importance/significance of stressing the message of the gospel as primarily an oral message, not a written one? Why does the author insist that only the NT writings are the principal source of Christian theology and not the OT? Why does he insist that the gospel is the sole norm of Christian theology? 6. What role did Marcion and the Montanists play in the formation of the Christian biblical canon? Be familiar with the five criteria for canonicity. Are you surprised that “divine inspiration” apparently was not one of the criteria?

61. Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology, 158–9.

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

7. What is meant by the expression “canon within the canon?” How did Luther understand this concept? How might a Roman Catholic theologian respond to Luther’s view that the canon within the canon is both a critical principle vis-à-vis the content of the Bible as a whole and a critical principle toward the church’s own teachings and traditions? 8. Which of the secondary sources that are identified in the chapter is most important for contemporary theology? Why? 9. What are some of the differences between the divine law and the divine gospel? Why does the author insist on rightly or properly distinguishing between law and gospel? 10. What is meant by the expression “simul justus et peccator?” How does this expression reflect the difference between law and gospel as it applies to the Christian believer?

Suggestions for further reading Reference works on the Bible Michael D. Coogan, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, 2 vols (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols (New York: Doubleday, 1992). Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson, Amy-Jill Levine, Anthony J. Saldarini, and Bruce Chilton, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Daniel Master, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology, 2 vols (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). Catherine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–9).

Brief introductions to the Bible and scriptural authority John Barton, “Bible,” ODCC, 1.232–8. David Carpenter, “Inspiration,” ER, 7.256–9. Stephen E. Fowl, “Scripture,” OHST, 345–61. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, Theodore Stylianopoulos, Gerald Fogarty, Rowan A. Greer, John Van Engen, Donald K. McKim, Henning Graf Reventlow, and Walter Brueggemann, “Scriptural Authority,” ABD, 5.1017–56. William A. Graham, “Scripture,” ER, 13.133–45. Dietrich-Alex Koch and Werner Brändle, “Inspiration/Theopneusty,” RPP, 6.504–9.

319

320

Fundamental Theology

Udo Schnelle, Georg Fischer, Hans-Jürgen Becker, Hans-Peter Müller, Lars Rydbeck, Christoph Schwöbel, Gordon Lathrop, Klaus Wegenast, R. S. Sugirtharajah, Joseph Dan, and Stephen Prickett, “Bible,” RPP, 2.1–25. James A. Sanders and Henry Y. Gamble, “Canon,” ABD, 1.837–61. Nahum Sarna, James H. Charlesworth, and Raymond Collins, “Biblical Literature,” ER, 2.152–202. Daria Pezzoli-Olgiati, Alfred Schindler, and Klaus Huizing, “Canon I-III,” RPP, 2.352–5. Gerald T. Sheppard, “Canon,” ER, 3.62–9. Johann Anselm Steiger, “Scriptural Principle,” RPP, 11.553–4. Richard Swinburne, “Authority of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church,” OHPT, 11–29. Rowan D. Williams, “Inspiration,” EC, 2.713–16.

Introductions to the Christian Bible Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997). [A comprehensive one-volume introduction to the New Testament, written by one of the most important NT scholars of the second half of the twentieth century. Brown’s scholarship reflects a mainstream Roman Catholic perspective.] Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination, 2nd edn (Louisville: John Knox/Westminster, 2012). [An excellent onevolume introduction to the Old Testament, written by the most important American scholar of the OT in the past half century.] Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). [A groundbreaking, comprehensive overview of the OT as a canonical, scriptural whole. Childs’s work deals with historical-critical questions, but then moves on to examine “the canonical shape” and theological emphases of each biblical book.] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). [A standard universitylevel introduction to the NT, written by one of the leading American scholars in the field. His approach is guided by rigorous historical-critical presuppositions.] Jan Christian Gertz, Angelika Berlejung, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte, T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament (New York: T&T Clark, 2012). [Provides a useful introduction to the sources, methods, history, religion, literature, and theology of the OT.] Mark W. Hamilton, A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). [A fine introduction to key theological themes, issues, and problems within the Old Testament from the perspective of Christian faith.] David Allan Hubbard, Frederic William Bush, William Sanford LaSor, Old Testament Survey, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). [A venerable college- and seminary- level introduction to the OT by a group of respected evangelical Christian scholars.]

Sources and Norms of Christian Theology

Halvor Moxnes, A Short History of the New Testament (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014). [This work provides a good introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, the reception of the documents that form the New Testament, and various approaches to reading the New Testament texts.] Robert Spivey, D. Moody Smith, and C. Clifton Black, Anatomy of the New Testament, 8th edn (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2019). [Standard, venerable, college-level introduction to the NT that utilizes both historical-critical and literary-critical approaches to the texts.] Jerry L. Sumney, The Bible: An Introduction, 3rd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021). [A very helpful university-level introduction to the Bible, focusing on “the story” of the Hebrew Bible and “the story” of the New Testament.]

Classic statements on the biblical canon and scriptural authority Aquinas, ST, I.1.8–10. For Luther, see Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 35–42, 72–102; Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology, 68–92; and Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology, 187–95. Calvin, ICR, I.7–11 (1.69–99). For older Lutheran Protestant views, see Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 38–91. For older Reformed Protestant views, see Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 12–46. For the Council of Trent’s decision on the canon, see Tanner, 2.663–5 (cf. Denzinger, 783–6). Schleiermacher, CF, §§128–32 (2.828–56).

More recent examinations on the canon and authority of Scripture Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). [A very helpful analysis of the nature and limitations of “divine inspiration” as a nonfundamentalistic basis for biblical authority.] James Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980). [Helpful essays that espouse a view of biblical authority that complements the one presented in this chapter. Barr has been a strong critic of fundamentalist understandings of biblical authority.] Barth, CD, I.1.99–124; I.2.457–740. Carl Braaten, “The Holy Scriptures” (Braaten and Jenson, eds., Christian Dogmatics, 1.61–78). Emil Brunner, Dogmatics, 2 vols, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950, 1952), 1.14–49. C. H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, rev. edn (London: William Collins, 1960). [An important statement on biblical authority by one of the most significant NT scholars of the past century.]

321

322

Fundamental Theology

Werner Elert, The Christian Faith: An Outline of Lutheran Dogmatics, trans. Martin Bertram and Walter Bouman (Columbus: Lutheran Theological Seminary, 1974), §§17–33 (69–128). Ernst Käsemann, “The New Testament Canon and the Unity of the Church,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM Press, 1964), 95– 107. [A major essay that seeks to demonstrate through historical analysis that the NT canon contains several conflicting theological perspectives that do not establish the unity of the church but rather the diversity of theological confessions. Against this view, the present chapter argues that the apostolic gospel in the homologoumena is clearly defined and can serve as the norm for theological orthodoxy.] David H. Kelsey, “The Bible and Christian Theology,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 48 (September 1980): 385–402. [A careful articulation of the place and use of Scripture in the theological task within the Christian church. He identifies the eschatological resurrection of Jesus as the “norming norm” within Christian theology.] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, 3rd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; reprint, 1997). [A classic work in the development of the New Testament canon. This is the place to begin one’s study of this issue.] Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 46–65. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.189–257. Catherine Doob Sakenfeld, “Whose Text Is It?” Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 1 (2008): 5–18. [This address by a previous president of the Society of Biblical Literature explores how the biblical texts are claimed to be important and how competing interpretative claims are negotiated when more than one group claims the same text as important.] Schlink, “The Preservation of the Church,” in Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/2.935– 54. [Schlink placed the locus on Scripture at the beginning of his chapter on the preservation of the church. His analysis seeks to overcome some of the differences between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic approaches to the Bible.] Harold C. Skillrud, J. Francis Stafford, and Daniel F. Martensen, eds., Scripture and Tradition: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IX (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995). [A very brief summary of agreements between Lutherans and Catholics on the relationship between the Scriptures and church traditions.] Helmut Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, 3 vols, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–82), 2.184–258. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.34–68. John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). [Webster acknowledges the importance of textual and historical criticism, but affirms the centrality of a Reformed, Barthian understanding of the authority of Scripture that is grounded in the self-giving revelation of the triune God. This view provides a counter-perspective to the law-gospel approach set forth in the present chapter.]

9 Interpreting the Scriptures After analyzing some unsatisfactory approaches to the interpretation of the Christian Bible, this chapter describes six basic principles of theological interpretation (hermeneutics). These principles can assist the person who seeks to understand the Bible both historically and theologically.

The most controversial issues in the past half millennium of Christian theology surround the Christian Bible. Of course, the major division that began in Western Christendom in the sixteenth century was largely the result of disagreements over scriptural authority and interpretation regarding church doctrine and practice; yet even among Protestant church bodies, divisions have occurred for the same or similar reasons. For example, the institutional conflict that occurred in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) in the 1960s and 1970s was largely about the authority of the Bible and the proper ways of interpreting Holy Scripture in the contemporary world. Some have even used the expression “The Battle for the Bible” to describe that crisis.1 Other church bodies have gone through or are going through similar crises, regarding such issues as human sexuality and identity, the ordination of women, the doctrine of creation in relation to scientific knowledge, and other Christian beliefs about which people continue to raise critical questions. These ongoing discussions and disagreements among Christians naturally lead to two basic questions in theology: (1) How should Christians understand the nature of biblical authority? and (2) How should the Bible be interpreted today? For more than two centuries no doctrine has been more contentious within the Protestant churches than the doctrine of Holy Scripture.2 No issue has been more central than the problem of interpreting the Bible for the present day. We usually refer to this as the problem of “hermeneutics.” 1. See Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976). 2. Already more than seventy years ago Hermann Sasse (1895–1976) identified this doctrine as the most disputed one within the Lutheran Church. See his unpublished letter, “On the Doctrine De Scriptura Sacra,” Letter Addressed to Lutheran Pastors, No. 14 (August 1950). While Sasse was critical of the inroads that Protestant liberalism had made into the Lutheran Church (e.g., minimizing the Scriptures as the written Word of God), he was especially critical of the inroads that fundamentalism had made among American Lutherans (e.g., holding to the inerrancy of the Bible with regard to all matters it treats, even indirectly).

324

Fundamental Theology

The term hermeneutics is likely derived from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was the son of Zeus and Maia, the daughter of the Titan Atlas. (Hermes’s Roman name was Mercury). The name “Hermes” itself appears to be derived from the early Greek word herma, which means “a pile of stones” that could be set up “to mark a boundary.”3 So Hermes is the god of boundaries and roads. His main boundary is the one that divided the gods and human beings. His role was to cross that boundary to deliver and translate messages from the gods for human beings. Hence, the Greek word for “interpreter” is hermeneus. Hermeneutics is therefore the art of interpretation or explanation.4 In a Christian context the term hermeneutics refers in a specific and narrow sense to the art of understanding and interpreting Scripture. More broadly, the term is used to refer to the process of understanding the whole Christian tradition and all that it contains—other texts, images, liturgical forms, architecture, icons. Hermeneutics also then entails attention to the specific principles that one utilizes toward that goal of understanding. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation and the rise of the modern sciences and critical scholarly disciplines, including history, philosophy, and philology (the study of words and their historical uses and meanings), the authority of the biblical writings has come to be questioned and even totally rejected. The entire tradition of Christian theology, including its treasured Bible, was subjected to critical examination on the basis of new principles of thought. This development has led to a variety of positions about the Bible and its authority, some of which have, under scrutiny, proved to be seriously inadequate. Before we examine helpful principles of interpretation that might help one to understand the Christian Scriptures better, we should point out some of these stances toward the Bible that have been problematic at best. These are extreme positions that one might want to avoid.5

Avoiding extremes Biblicism The first of these positions has been called biblicism, since it treats the Bible as a fully supernatural document, almost as if it fell out of heaven in its current shape and 3. Robin Hard, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology (London: Routledge, 2004), 158. 4. Cf. Michael Inwood, “Hermeneutics,” REP, 348; and Anthony C. Thiselton, “Hermeneutics, Biblical,” REP, 348–9. 5. In the following section I am expanding on terms and analysis by Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 49–52.

Interpreting the Scriptures

size and as absolutely true and accurate on every matter that it mentions, even in passing. This position, which came to prominence only after the sixteenth century (in Protestant Orthodoxy and certain sectors of conservative Roman Catholicism), largely as a reaction against the changed intellectual situation in the modern age, views the inspired word of God to be identical to the entire contents of the Bible, and these contents are, in their entirety, understood to be directly applicable to every time and place. This view understands the inspiration of the Scriptures to mean that God actually dictated the writings of the Scriptures to their human authors, that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses (who, incidentally, if this view were correct, must have wept when he wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which describes his death!), and that the four Gospels were written by direct eyewitnesses to the events they describe (despite Luke’s own statement at the start of his Gospel that he had relied on others, cf. Lk. 1.1-4). If God directly dictated the Scriptures, and God is perfectly omniscient, then it stands to reason that the Scriptures are without error, even in statements of a nontheological nature or regarding details that are insignificant. The seventeenth-century Lutheran theologian, Johann Gerhard, provides a classic defense of this position: The divine authority of Scripture rises from and depends on the efficient principal cause of Holy Scripture, which is God. Because Holy Scripture has God as its author, by whose immediate inspiration the prophets, evangelists, and apostles wrote, it obtains its divine authority therefrom and therefore. Because it is God-breathed, published, and spread by divine inspiration, therefore it is credible in itself, having credibility from itself. It is important that the divine authority of Scripture be a wellbuilt structure, for as Augustine rightly warns us: “Faith will stagger if the authority of the Sacred Scriptures wavers.”6

Gerhard argued that every book, even the antilegomena, every chapter, every verse, every word, even the vowel points in the Hebrew words of the OT (which in fact were not part of the original texts but were added in the early Middle Ages, c. AD 600–750), were divinely inspired and the direct result of God’s supernatural operation. This position about the divine inspiration of the Scriptures was also affirmed by Reformed Orthodoxy.7 Although it has become far more prominent in the past five hundred years, this kind of extreme biblicism was not entirely unknown in the early centuries of Christianity. A similar understanding of divine inspiration can be found in the early church as well. According to a second-century defender of Christianity, “Under the impulse of the divine Spirit and raised above their own thoughts, [Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest of the prophets] proclaimed the things with which they were

6. Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces, vol. 1, On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, 67–8. 7. See Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 20.

325

326

Fundamental Theology

inspired. For the Spirit used them just as a flute player blows on a flute.”8 The Hebrew Scriptures were believed to be qualitatively different from all other human writings because of their divine, supernatural origin and their direct inspiration by God. Certainly, Gerhard and other Protestant theologians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were right to tie the perfection of Scripture to its ability to instruct perfectly “about all things necessary for attaining salvation.”9 But subsequent theologians (such as Francis Pieper) wrongly extended its “perfection” to every matter about which it treats, even in passing.10 More recent theologians have made the same claim: The inspired word of God is inerrant, that is, without error in all that it says … Even in the face of alleged discrepancies in the Bible, one can rest assured that when all the facts are known, the divine Scriptures will prove themselves true in everything they teach, whether that teaching has to do with doctrine, history, science, geography, geology, or other disciplines or knowledge.11

If the canonical Scriptures are not perfect and without error in every respect, Pieper maintained, then they cannot be trusted to convey God’s word of truth about anything. The guarantee of this “inerrancy” is a dictation theory of the divine inspiration of the biblical writings, that the Holy Spirit guided and governed the biblical writers in such a manner that they were kept from committing any error. In this view God literally spoke into the minds of the prophets and apostles the exact words they were to use, directly inspiring them so that the biblical writers were more like passive secretaries who were only taking down God’s dictation, or musical instruments, through which the Holy Spirit played the divine tune. More moderate forms of this view of inspiration allow that the Holy Spirit did not override the biblical prophets and apostles with respect to their historical, social, and cultural limitations and allowed them more freedom to reflect their linguistic and cultural particularities, including their limited understanding of the world of their 8. Athenagoras, “A Plea Regarding Christians by Athenagoras, the Athenian, a Philosopher and a Christian,” in Early Christian Fathers, ed. Cyril Richardson (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 308. 9. Gerhard, On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, 333; cf. Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 38–66. 10. See Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1.317–19. Even Aquinas came close to this position when he quoted a statement from one of Augustine’s letters to Jerome (“Letter 82,” 1.3 [cf. NPNF1, 1.350]): Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem anything in their works to be true merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning. (Aquinas, ST, I.1.8, ad. 2) 11. Steven P. Mueller, ed., Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess: An Introduction to Doctrinal Theology (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 41.

Interpreting the Scriptures

time. If the Bible is still believed and confessed to be the inspired word of God, as it surely is by orthodox Christians, such inspiration did not do away with the human conditioning of the Scriptures that leads to stylistic, linguistic, cultural, and even relatively minor theological differences from one biblical writing to the next. A problem with any view of biblical authority in terms of inerrancy, however, is that one can end up with a solely mechanistic, miraculous understanding of the Bible’s origin that downplays or even ignores the human, historical, and cultural conditioning that is clearly apparent within the biblical writings themselves. This view of inerrancy often ends up directly applying all of the Bible’s statements to the present, as if there have been no historical changes since the days of the biblical writings (or historical and cultural changes from one biblical writing to another). This view also flattens out the variety of expressions within the Bible and gives them all an equal authority, as if the biblical assertion that “Nimrod was the first on earth to become a mighty fighter” (Gen. 10.8) is of the same theological value as the Johannine assertion, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life” (Jn 3.16 [RSV]). In this way, theology becomes entirely based on biblical quotations and facts, no matter how minor or obscure, and all the theologian needs to do is to marshal biblical passages into a sequence of the theologian’s own making in order to defend that theologian’s absolutely certain position or attack the presumed faulty theological statements of others. More significantly, this “dictation theory” of divine inspiration (or any other theory that tries to explain how the Holy Spirit inspired finite human beings to produce the Holy Scriptures) downplays the genuinely human aspect of the biblical writings, which were written down by culturally conditioned, weak, poor, fallible human beings. If we deny this human character of the Scriptures, then whatever appears to be “humanly conditioned” in the Scriptures is just that, a mere “appearance.” Then Psalm 51 loses its human character as a heartfelt prayer of repentance, even as Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane would have to be interpreted as merely a superficial play acting. Then, too, the letters of Paul and the other epistles in the NT, complete with their personal remarks (including the frank acknowledgment of a lapse in memory; cf. 1 Cor. 1.14-16!), would lose their character as actual letters, written by particular human beings for other particular human beings. The problem with an approach to the Bible that stresses any theory of its infallibly inspired character ought to be clear: not every individual statement or assertion in the Bible is consistent with the gospel. Every reader of the Christian Bible ought to distinguish between what is incidental or peripheral within the Bible and what is essential and central to its overall message and purpose. The gospel about Christ, which is attested in diverse ways within the Scriptures, is the key that unlocks the meaning of the whole of Scripture and allows its individual parts to be understood in relation to that biblical whole.

327

328

Fundamental Theology

When biblical authority is based on constructed theories of how the Holy Spirit has inspired the biblical authors and/or their writings, other problems arise as well. Such theories often presume that unless one can first rationally demonstrate the divine inspiration and perfection of the Bible, one cannot submit to the scriptural word. But how can one ever prove or demonstrate a writing to be “divinely inspired,” especially when one considers that in the early church many writings that were purported to be inspired were in fact judged heretical or at least non-apostolic (and thus noncanonical)? In point of fact, Christian faith does not submit to the authority of the Bible because its divine authority has first been demonstrated through logical inference or rational argumentation. Rather, the divine words in Scripture, particularly the law and the gospel, authenticate themselves powerfully again and again in the present through the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. That testimony, however, remains always tied to the human words in Scripture, which were spoken and written by human beings in different settings over the course of many centuries, who used many different types of speaking and writing to convey the words of the LORD. As one important contemporary Lutheran theologian rightly notes: The authority of Scripture is not formal but highly material and content driven. It is the voice of its author, who gives; who allows for astonishment, lament, and praise; who demands and fulfills. Scripture can in no wise be confirmed as having formal authority in advance, so that the content becomes important only at a secondary stage of the process. The text in its many forms—particularly in the law’s demand and the gospel’s promise—uses this material way of doing business to validate its authority.12

As another Lutheran theologian has put the matter: The authority of Scripture can always and only be discovered in the validity of its substantive content. To cite one example, we do not believe in Christ because of the formal binding force of Scripture, but rather Scripture first becomes authority for us by and in the fact that it certifies Christ to us.13

Moreover, the Bible did not fall out of heaven as a complete, finished, and polished document. Indeed, as we have already noted in Chapter 8, not only do the principal Christian churches disagree among themselves about the extent of the biblical canon (i.e., the official biblical canon of the Roman Catholic Church differs from that of the Eastern Orthodox churches, which is still different from the canon recognized by most Protestant churches), but the Scriptures within those various canons emerged gradually over time, and many, many human voices and hands were involved in their production and transmission. From one perspective, regardless of the canon that is recognized, the biblical contents are in their entirety a collection of human documents. From another perspective, these diverse human writings are the means by 12. Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology, 69 (trans. modified). 13. Elert, The Christian Faith, 26.

Interpreting the Scriptures

which God continues to address human beings with his divine words of law, wisdom, and promise. In this sense, too, these writings reflect the humility and lowliness of the living Word of God in Jesus himself, who also authoritatively addressed human beings. The Word of God comes in the “form of humiliation.” These conditions under which the Word of God exists cannot be improved or overcome by any kind of theories of inspiration, or by arguments that are designed to protect the Bible from its “humanity.” Faith always discovers the revelation of God in “secret,” in the human covering that hides it. This universal and fundamental rule applies also to the Word of God, both in Scripture and in preaching.14

Likewise, there are significant problems with the position that the Bible is without error of any kind. Instead of seeing the authority of Scripture in its prophetic and apostolic witness to the truth of the gospel for the sake of creating trust in God, this position insists that Scripture is without error in all matters of which it speaks, even with respect to history and science. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church developed the doctrine of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1870), some Protestants have developed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. To guarantee the truth and certainty of faith, this outlook presumes that one must first have a perfect and absolute authority—either an infallible pope or an inerrant Bible. Those who hold the latter position often use the following syllogism: (1) God is the primary author of the Bible; (2) God cannot err; therefore, (3) the Bible is without error. But this position of inerrancy does not stand up to careful scrutiny. First, it must be frankly acknowledged that the Bible does contain minor errors and contradictions. According to 1 Kings 4.26, Solomon had 40,000 stalls, but only 4,000 in 2 Chron. 9.25. According to 1 Chron. 19.18, David killed 7,000 Syrian charioteers, while 1 Sam. 10.18 states he killed only 700. According to 1 Chron. 18.4, David captured 7,000 horsemen, while 2 Sam. 8.4 states that he captured only 700. (Perhaps those responsible for copying these scriptural texts, as they were passed down over centuries, committed these errors.) The writings of the OT prophets contain some errors of historical fact, since the contents of those writings were first spoken in various places and times by individual prophets who were separated by time and space from other prophets. The spoken messages were written down only at a later time (and then often subsequently edited still further by the prophet’s disciples or more literary scribes). Frequently the high numbers of those involved in biblical events are literal errors and must be understood as hyperbole, for example, the number of Israelites who left Egypt at the time of the Exodus (Exod. 12.37), which, if literally accurate, would have totaled more than 2,000,000 men, women, and children—a completely improbable 14. Gustav Aulén, The Faith of the Christian Church, 4th edn, trans. Eric H. Wahlstrom and G. Everett Arden (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1948), 327.

329

330

Fundamental Theology

number, given the circumstances. A similar exaggeration occurs at 2 Chron. 13.17, where 500,000 soldiers of Israel are said to have been killed in a single battle. There are, of course, many other discrepancies and minor errors in the Scriptures. The sequence of temptations in Mt. 4.1-11 differs from the sequence in Lk. 4.1-13. Was Jesus tempted after fasting for 40 days (so Mt. 4.2-3), or during the 40 days (so Lk. 4.2-3)? Did those who lowered the paralytic have to dig through the roof above Jesus in order to lower the mat (so Mk 2.4), or did those people merely lower the paralytic “through the tiles” (Lk. 5.19)? When Jesus sent out the disciples, did he forbid them from taking either sandals or a staff (so Mt. 10.9-10)? Why, then, in Mark’s account, does Jesus tell the disciples to take nothing except a staff and to wear sandals (Mk 6.8-9)? And in Luke’s account, the disciples are told to take no staff (Lk. 9.3)! Clearly, these three accounts are not in complete agreement, even if the basic overall message is roughly the same. Many other reports about the same event in the canonical Gospels conflict with each other with respect to the details and cannot be harmonized, though some contort themselves trying to do so. For example, where did Peter deny Christ? John’s account (Jn 18.13-34), where Peter denied Jesus in the courtyard of Annas, cannot be squared with the accounts of the same event in the Synoptic Gospels, where Peter denied Jesus in the courtyard of Caiaphas (Mt. 25.5768; Mk 14.53-65; Lk. 22.54-71). How many individuals did the women encounter when they came to the empty tomb of Jesus? One “angel” who is sitting on the stone, as in Mt. 28.2-7? One “young man” who is not on the stone but inside the tomb, as in Mk 16.5? “Two men” who suddenly stood beside the women inside the tomb, as in Lk. 24.4? In John’s account (Jn 20), only Mary Magdalene initially went to the tomb, and there is no mention of her encountering an angel or a young man or two young men. There is no way to harmonize these four individual accounts of the same basic event. There are other little errors in the Scriptures as well. For example, the Gospel of Matthew (27.9) wrongly attributes a quotation to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. The journey of Jesus described in Mk 7.31 is geographically impossible (suggesting that the author of the Gospel of Mark never lived in Palestine, let alone actually knew firsthand about Jesus’ words and deeds). Jas 2.24 seemingly contradicts the clear teaching of Paul, who stressed that a person is justified by faith “apart from works” (Gal. 2.16; cf. Rom. 3.28). If taken literally, Heb. 6.1-3 contradicts the teaching of 1 Jn 1.9, which indicates that there is always an opportunity to repent of one’s sins and to seek Christ’s forgiveness. From the perspective of modern cosmology and astrophysics, the Bible also contains errant understandings of the physical universe. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches a heliocentric solar system. On the contrary, many passages literally teach the immobility of the earth, and several teach the movement of the sun around the earth (e.g., Gen. 15.12, 19.23; Josh. 10.12-13; Job 9.7; Ps. 19.4b-6; etc.). Many biblical passages indicate the earth is founded on pillars or an immovable foundation (1 Sam.

Interpreting the Scriptures

2.8 et passim). Similarly, from the perspective of modern biology, Jesus’ statement in Mk 4.31 (“the mustard seed … is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth”) is inaccurate. Many other such examples of tiny inaccuracies or errors in the Scriptures could be given. Then, too, one notes how contemporary individuals rightly object to some outdated teachings in the Bible that support the ongoing subordination of slaves to masters and of women to men, teachings that are contradicted by the gospel promise that is given in Gal. 3.28, by the gifts of the Spirit that are given to all the baptized (Gal. 5.22-26), and by other biblical texts that support the full equality and dignity of human beings. Aside from these obvious inaccuracies and minor errors in the Scriptures, many of which cannot be simply attributed to the errors of copyists, there are other reasons for rejecting the view that the Bible is “inerrant.” Such a view tends to level the biblical writings and to give them an equal importance. This “leveling” ends up turning the Bible into some kind of absolute legal authority, whose commands and exhortations in their entirety are binding for all times and places. Not only does such a leveling downplay the distinction between the law and the gospel within the biblical writings, but it ignores the fact that some biblical passages of divine gospel “cross out” other biblical passages and open them up for alternative understandings and applications over time. Some biblical commands, for example, can no longer be understood and applied in the present because they presuppose an entirely different social and political ordering from that of any contemporary Western society (e.g., selling one’s daughter as a slave, Exod. 21.7). Even many apostolic commands within the NT no longer have the same meaning or application as they had in the first centuries of the church. Slavery has been abolished. No one today talks about eating (or not eating) food “offered to idols” (1 Cor. 8). Christians today eat food with blood in it, despite the apostolic prohibition against such eating (Acts 15.28-29). Modern liberal democracy has done away with hierarchical understandings of political authority, for example, dictatorship (cf. Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2.13-17), although we have seen in recent years how fragile such democracies are. In Western culture today women have the same equal standing and spiritual responsibility before God as men, and so on. The ethical exhortations within the NT apostolic texts provide a pattern for contemporary reflection on how those exhortations might be understood and applied today in very different circumstances from the first-century church, but they cannot be viewed on the same level as the proclamation of the gospel and the promise of the new creation in and through the crucified and risen Christ. Some of the ethical exhortations in the NT cannot be directly applied to contemporary situations without careful attention to the historical and cultural distance that exists between them and those situations. One may certainly affirm the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the only infallible rule of Christian faith and life, because they teach faithfully and with clarity the truth of the gospel that God wanted recorded for the sake of creating and sustaining faith in Christ, but the entirety of the Bible cannot serve as that infallible rule. If the Christian

331

332

Fundamental Theology

Bible is not a perfectly consistent set of documents, at least with respect to matters of history, science, geography, and other nontheological matters, and even with respect to some peripheral theological issues and ad hoc apostolic exhortations, most Christians insist that the Bible’s basic, overall message is clear and consistent: God judges sin and sinners, yet God loves and forgives sinners for Christ’s sake and remains steadfast in his covenantal faithfulness. In this respect, the Bible will not mislead a person about God and the central teachings of the faith; it can be trusted to impart the truth of the gospel in a reliable manner.15

Historicism Another position on biblical authority that has found many followers, but has also been substantially criticized, is sometimes called historicism. This view treats the Bible only and entirely as a disparate collection of humanly constructed documents, useful only for understanding the time in which they were written. This approach to the biblical texts denies or brackets out of consideration the theological, supra-historical dimension within these writings and their witness to divine revelation. Accordingly, historical events are entirely a matter of human actions, and one must reject claims about miraculous events. The interpreter of the Bible must be critical in discerning what really happened in the past and why, in weighing historical evidence and in understanding the historical, this-worldly connections and influences between Ancient Near Eastern cultures and the contents of the Christian Bible. The German theologian and sociologist Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923) has classically summarized the historicist perspective by stressing three principles of historical criticism that he argued every historian ought to follow: (1) the principle of criticism or methodical doubt, which implies that historical reconstruction is always a matter of probability and not certainty; (2) the principle of analogy, which implies that every historical event bears some similarity to all other events and that what occurs today may serve as a reliable norm for what has occurred in the past; and (3) the principle of correlation, which implies that all historical events are interrelated within a chain of natural causes and effects.16 According to Troeltsch, these principles are not only to be used heuristically, in the sense that they can be confirmed or refuted by human experience, but used as a kind of dogmatic method that has an irrefutable validity.

15. Ted Peters, God—The World’s Future (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 63; cf. the similar position set forth by Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 375–7. 16. Ernst Troeltsch, “Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology,” in Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 13–15. For a more recent articulation of a similar position in relation to Christian theology, see Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Belief (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996).

Interpreting the Scriptures

Of course, if one applied these historicist principles without qualification to the historical investigation of the Christian Bible, one would have to deny (or at least bracket out) the possibility of a properly theological cause within history, including the possibility of any divine miracle within nature or history. If researchers used these principles as dogmatic criteria, then only those miracles could be accepted as historical “for which analogies can be demonstrated in our own area of experience.”17 The historicist’s view of history, which is sometimes also called “historical positivism” (which rejects metaphysics and theism in the practice of historical science), “precludes that the Bible’s own view of history could be true.”18 Troeltsch’s three principles, if used rigidly rather than heuristically, would make one blind to what is extraordinary in the biblical witness to salvation history. While to some extent Troeltsch’s principles are in tension with one another, they are also in tension with God’s own freedom to act in history. If one remains open to divine action, then the use of historical-critical methods to understand the biblical texts need not necessarily entail a commitment to naturalism/materialism, that is, a commitment to a disbelief in supernatural action. To be sure, the apostolic witness to Jesus as the crucified and risen Christ invites critical reflection on the historical person of Jesus and on his reported words and actions. Such reflection, especially since the seventeenth century, has led to a greater awareness of the cultural and historical distance that exists between contemporary biblical interpreters and that which they strive to understand historically and make clear in the present. In light of this awareness the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation has contributed to new and lasting insights into the historical character of both the biblical texts themselves as written documents and their contents—the events, ideas, and teachings they present. The use of that method is one of the great developments within the history of Christian theology.19 It has helped to disclose the fact that the written sources for the historical figure of Jesus, to varying degrees, have been shaped by theological interests and perspectives that have more or less concealed Jesus “as he really was” behind “the Christ” as he has been proclaimed by the believing church. The method has thus helped to illumine the tensions between the so-called “Jesus of history” (first-century Palestinian Jew) and the theological-dogmatic understandings of “the Christ of faith” (the significance of Jesus for Christian faith) that was gradually clarified and defined in the NT and 17. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.430. 18. Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 61. 19. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 2.107. See also Gerhard Ebeling, “The Significance of the Critical Historical Method for Church and Theology in Protestantism,” in Word and Faith, 17–61. While modern Protestants have used the historical-critical method since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, its use in the Roman Catholic Church has only been officially authorized by the pope since 1943. See the papal encyclical Divino afflante spiritu (Denzinger, 3825–31).

333

334

Fundamental Theology

early church creeds and confessions in the centuries after Jesus’ life. It also helps us seek to understand Jesus as he actually was in his original historical context. Further, the method has also helped to highlight the tensions and contradictions that exist between the worldview(s) in the Bible and the worldviews of today, and to wrestle with these differences. Somewhat ironically, the use of the historical method to investigate the history of scholarly inquiries into the “historical Jesus” has itself disclosed how the presuppositions of historians often predetermined the sort of “Jesus” such scholars set out to find. Nearly every historian in search of the historical Jesus, attempting to be rational and historical and free of illusion, discovered a Jesus that reflected the historian’s own values and ideals.20 Scholars looking for Jesus “behind” the apostolic writings ended up creating a Jesus after their own heart, all in the name of the strict canons of historical investigation, the principles of rational and historical criticism, and the denial of divine action within history. Another significantly negative consequence of the historicist position is “the eclipse of the biblical narrative,” when the supposed historical facts “behind” the biblical writings became more central than the biblical narrative itself.21 The canonical gospels are not really historical sources that will give us a “life,” much less a “biography” of the historical Jesus. That was not and is not their purpose. The Jesus of history remains concealed behind the apostolic witness to his theological significance. Following the insights of Martin Kähler, one has to note that the canonical Gospels—from beginning to end—are not merely concerned with Jesus as he was in his historical time, but with Jesus as he now is, namely, the real and living, risen Christ who is decisively significant for Christian faith. The Gospels, then, are expansions of the apostolic kerygma into narrative forms, whose goal is the creation and sustenance of faith in the living Christ. As the Gospel of John states: “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by 20. This conclusion is one of the abiding achievements of Albert Schweitzer’s (1875–1965) classic investigation of the historical-critical study of Jesus, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, ed. John Bowden, trans. William Montgomery, John Bowden, J. R. Coates, and Susan Cupitt (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001). Schweitzer’s own ideals regarding the nature of the historical method and his understanding of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet determined his own evaluation of the scholars he investigated. Schweitzer judged all of the figures in his book by how well they contributed to the liberation of the historical method from supernaturalism, to the recognition that the Synoptic Gospels are more valuable as historical sources than the Gospel of John, and to the triumph of the eschatological view of Jesus over against the non-eschatological view. (As the next chapter will point out, Schweitzer held that Jesus was a world-denying apocalyptic preacher whose announcement of the coming kingdom of God predicted the imminent end of the world. Cf. Matthew L. Becker, “Schweitzer’s Quests for Jesus and Paul,” Concordia Journal 28 [October 2002]: 409–30). 21. See Hans Frei, The Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). For an excellent analysis of the rise of historicism in nineteenth-century Germany, see Thomas Albert Howard, Religion and the Rise of Historicism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Interpreting the Scriptures

believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20.31). This point was made by biblical theologian Johannes von Hofmann as well, who argued that historical criticism, at least in an historicist-positivist framework, does not allow the interpreter of the church’s Scriptures to be open to the present experience of faith in the living, risen Christ, as confessed by the apostles, as formed in the historic divine liturgies, and as clarified in the historic orthodox creeds and the dogmatic history of the church. In this regard, the canonical Gospels share the apostles’ kerygmatic goals and have as their presupposition an experience that goes beyond the bounds of the principles of historical positivism. This experience is itself the precondition for understanding the continuity between Jesus’ preaching, the apostles’ preaching of Jesus, the orthodox and catholic divine liturgies, and the development of trinitarian and christological dogma in the history of the church. It must be frankly stated, then, that “Jesus of Nazareth as he really was,” as uncovered (or attempted to be discovered) only by historical research, cannot be “the norm of what is Christian today,” since that norm would inevitably be a modern construct of the historian’s own making.22 The essential significance of the homologoumena and their theological meanings is grounded in the apostolic witness to the significance of Jesus Christ for Christian faith. The scholarly survey and critical analysis of “the quest for the historical Jesus” by Albert Schweitzer demonstrates that in the history of investigating the Gospels, many have been overconfident in the use of their reason to uncover historical facts behind the canonical writings. Perhaps contrary to Schweitzer’s own historicist ideals, his narrative discloses that the truth of the gospel is of a different character than the truths that human reason is capable of discovering on its own. While the correct responses to Enlightenment rationalism and historicist positivism cannot be irrationalism or antirationalism or antihistorical inquiry, one’s rational investigation of Holy Scripture ought to be humble and self-critical in the face of apparent facts and realities that go beyond the domain of the sciences and the strict canons of historical-critical investigation. Certainly, the principles of the Enlightenment ought not to be rejected in toto, but their limitations ought to be recognized. The investigation of reported miracles in the apostolic witness, including the investigation into the claim of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, cannot presuppose from the outset that the divine reality is incapable of working beyond the normal course of secondary causes in nature, as if the universe is closed off from God’s ongoing, active involvement. While God usually works through natural means, God also intervenes in creation, according to the uniform testimony of the biblical 22. This sentence is directed against the contrary assertion by Lüdemann, Heretics, 207. “History” and “dogma” need not necessarily be mutually exclusive, especially since every understanding of “history” contains assumptions about what is true, real, and significant.

335

336

Fundamental Theology

prophets and apostolic witnesses. Because God is the Creator of nature and the general order of things (often called “the laws of nature”), God is responsible for them but is not always subject to them. In support of the traditional belief [in miracles] it has been argued that on a genuinely theistic view miracles are not only possible but even probable, for if God is held to be the supreme first cause responsible for, but not subject to, the laws of nature, it would likely be that he should, from time to time, act directly without the intervention of secondary causes.23

If biblicism downplays the human quality of the Christian Scriptures, historicism rejects the divine aspect, both in terms of God’s action in history and in terms of the Spirit’s action in moving humans to communicate God’s authoritative word orally and in writing. The church acknowledges and confesses that because God is the primary author of the Scriptures, these prophetic and apostolic writings are the unique and normative authority for the church’s faith and life. Yes, human beings wrote the Scriptures, but their witness includes the assertion that these very humans were “moved by the Holy Spirit” who caused them to speak “from God” (1 Pet. 1.21; 2 Tim. 3.15-16). The prophets of the OT stated that their words were “the word of the LORD” (e.g., Hos. 1.1; Joel 1.1; Isa. 52.3-4; Jer. 4.3; et passim). Similarly, the apostles claimed that they were not speaking on their own authority but as ones who were authorized to speak for God (Acts 13.46; 1 Thess. 2.13; Gal. 1; 2 Cor. 4.7-12; Rev. 1.2; et passim). In the Gospel of John, Jesus teaches that the apostles would be led by the Spirit, who would teach them everything and remind them of all that he had said to them (Jn 14.26). Moreover, historicism is really uninterested in the self-authenticating nature of the biblical texts, which, through the powerful working of the Spirit, are able to bring people to faith in God. Since from the historicist point of view all texts are only pertinent to a particular time, historicists tend to be blind to how written words can radically transcend their original time. The Scriptures, in their essential core, are such transcendent texts. They are a means of grace, which convey the central, abiding message that God seeks to convey to humankind. The process by which the biblical canon came to be acknowledged led churches and individuals to affirm some texts as witnesses to true teaching of God, whereas other texts were rejected or not treated as sacred writings. The church places itself under the Scriptures, that is, those writings that had authenticated themselves as authoritative and normative for the church’s own faith and actions. The church continually devotes itself to these writings that preserve the church and give it life and direction.

23. Richard Bernier, “Miracle,” ODCC, 2.1280.

Interpreting the Scriptures

Aestheticism Another position on biblical authority that also needs to be criticized is the one that views the Bible merely as a literary “classic.” In this view, the Bible, or at least the most attractive parts of it, is understood primarily as a great piece of world literature. This position is often called aestheticism, since it is concerned only with the artistic, literary qualities of the biblical writings and tends to avoid understanding the writings as they were originally intended and as they continue to be read by the faith communities that treasure them and use them theologically. Of course, appreciating the Bible’s aesthetic qualities is laudable and perhaps even necessary, given how many people in the Western world today are unfamiliar with even the most basic of biblical stories and figures. The 400th anniversary of the publication of the so-called King James Bible served as an opportunity for scholars to note the huge cultural influence, especially on English literature and the development of the English language, that that particular version of the Bible has had.24 Other scholars, too, have provided helpful analysis of the literary and narrative aspects of the biblical texts.25 These aspects are often unrecognized or unknown by many young people in America today, as is the Bible’s significant influence on the development of Western culture, art, and literature. We should also applaud the work of many literary scholars, including especially the American professor of Hebrew and comparative literature Robert Alter (b. 1935), who have helped to draw attention to the final canonical form of the biblical texts as important for careful study, particularly with regard to its literary beauty and embedded meanings. Alter and others have developed highly sophisticated literarycritical approaches to biblical interpretation that have helped to move people away from what can become a very dry historical investigation of the (hypothetically reconstructed) sources behind the biblical texts. The approach of such scholars to seeing the final redaction of the biblical texts as brilliantly literary in many respects is often far more powerful than typical historical-critical treatments, and it can often deepen religious understanding (and deepen one’s belief that divine inspiration can work through artistic genius). To read the Bible carefully, one must focus closely on its language, its literary forms, its literary character, its narrative structure. Literary scholars are thus extremely helpful for analyzing the various words, genres, and 24. The anniversary year of 2011 witnessed the publication of several important studies, but in general, see Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611–2011 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); and David Crystal, Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 25. The literature here is extensive, but in general, see, for example, Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); and Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2nd edn (New York: Basic Books, 2011).

337

338

Fundamental Theology

narratives that are found within the biblical texts, as well as the poetry that is found there.26 By focusing on genre and narrative (plot, theme, character, narration, interior monologue, dialogue, etc.), as well as biblical poetry (much of it richly textured and complicated) and other literary issues relating to the biblical texts, these scholars have shown how profound truths may reside at a deeper level than “surface,” casual, literalistic readings of the texts suggest. In particular, Alter’s translations of the Hebrew biblical texts are beautiful, fresh, often truly moving, and thus worthy of repeated readings and study. His commentaries on the Hebrew texts frequently uncover deep theological meaning.27 In addition, his work toward relating Jewish and Christian readings of the same biblical texts can only be praised. Alter is precisely right to point out to students and readers of the Bible “what it is about these texts that is worthy of a reader’s love and an occasion for a reader’s enjoyment.”28 We must, however, raise some concerns with respect to a purely aesthetic approach to the biblical writings, particularly with respect to the theological relationship of the NT to the OT. While appreciating the Bible as great world literature and as a means of conveying potentially profound religious truths is a most worthy endeavor, there are at least two potentially problematic consequences that can arise from this approach, at least for the Christian who is concerned about understanding God’s actions in history. First, the historical dimensions of the Bible can easily be ignored in favor of merely understanding it as a collection of beautiful literary texts. Schweitzer’s analysis of the thesis by David F. Strauss, who held that the written Gospels contain religious-mythic ideas that appear to be historical but are really the product of human imagination, and Schweitzer’s criticism of the purely literary approaches of Bruno Bauer (1809–82) and William Wrede (1859–1906), should be a warning to those who want to adopt non- or antihistorical approaches to the Gospels.29 A purely literary approach to the Gospels and other historical writings in the Bible, one that is unwilling or unable to address historical-critical questions, can lead to consistent skepticism about God’s actions in history and to Jesus as an historical figure. At least this is what Schweitzer’s study demonstrates. Second, the aesthetic approach, like the historicist one, can lead people to downplay or even ignore the normative function of 26. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985). 27. See, for example, Robert Alter, Genesis (New York: Norton, 1996); Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, 1999); Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, 2004); and Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, 3 vols (New York: Norton, 2019). 28. Robert Alter, “A Life of Learning: Wandering Among Fields,” The 2013 Charles Homer Haskins Prize Lecture, https://www.christ​iani​tyan​dlit​erat​ure.com/Rob​ert-Alter (accessed June 5, 2023). 29. Bauer held that the Gospel of Mark was a purely literary invention of a single author who created the fictional character of Jesus. Likewise, Wrede held that the so-called “Messianic secret” in Mark, whereby Jesus tells his disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Christ (Mk 8.30; cf. 1.25, 3.12), was a literary invention in the early church, thus also undermining Mark as a source for the historical Jesus.

Interpreting the Scriptures

the Christian Bible within the Christian communities that read the Bible theologically and historically. The aesthetic approach tends to bracket out of consideration the theological claims that are made through the biblical texts. Christian communities do not treat the Bible merely as great literature (though it is that, to be sure), but “as Scripture which, illuminated by the Spirit, normatively attests to the acts of the living God for our salvation.”30 The theological purpose of the Scriptures is to witness to the mighty deeds of God for the sake of eliciting and strengthening faith in Christ to the glory of God. That purpose need not be contradicted by an aesthetic approach to the Bible, but it can be marginalized or clouded by it.

Subjectivism A final problematic position regarding biblical authority can be labeled subjectivism. This occurs when individuals treat the Bible in such a manner that it merely and completely confirms what they already hold to be true and valid. In that way, the Bible becomes merely a mirror of each person’s self and of one’s individualistic values and ideas, rather than that which also speaks over against the individual and calls the individual’s beliefs, values, and life into question. Subjectivism holds that there is no external meaning within the biblical writings and that interpretation is really just a matter of the self who imposes meaning on the text or discovers a meaning that suits the autonomous individual who is beholden to no external authority. To be sure, all interpreters of the biblical writings, whether they are Christian believers or not, bring their presuppositions to the Bible, which shape and inform their understanding of the Bible. Bultmann rightly argued that every interpreter ought to come to the task of interpreting the Bible “without presupposing the results” of one’s exegesis (lit. “leading out” the meaning[s]‌of a biblical text). But Bultmann also rightly noted that “no exegesis is without presuppositions, because the exegete is not a tabula rasa [a blank slate] but approaches the text with specific questions or with a specific way of asking questions and thus has a certain idea of the subject matter with which the text is concerned.”31 One of the first to note this personal dimension within biblical interpretation was Johannes von Hofmann, who articulated the necessity for an existential, personal relationship to the basic message of the Christian Bible and to the history of biblical interpretation within Christian communities. According to Hofmann, the interpreter cannot avoid a personal relationship with that which is interpreted if one wishes to gain a fuller understanding of that “other.” The question, then, is which are the 30. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 52. 31. Rudolf Bultmann, “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?,” in New Testament & Mythology and Other Basic Writings, ed. and trans. Schubert M. Ogden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 145. See also Werner Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance (London: SCM Press, 1994),

339

340

Fundamental Theology

most appropriate hermeneutical presuppositions that are the conditions for proper theological understanding?32 Those who think they interpret without Christian presuppositions have merely replaced those traditional presuppositions with some other kind of presupposition. While some historians have called for “the death of the self ” in the quest for “objective” historical knowledge, Hofmann recognized that the self is inescapably part of theological understanding. Interpreters are not a blank slate, on which the Bible can paint itself, but they enter into the process of interpretation as the people they are. Indeed, the process of interpretation is both a seeking to understand that which is other than oneself but also a seeking of self-understanding. In the end, one cannot properly speak of God theologically without being caught up in this speech with one’s whole being. This process of interpretation leads to what is commonly called the hermeneutical circle. All interpreters find themselves within such a circle when they endeavor to understand a text: one has a pre-understanding or expectation of the text one is to understand that one cannot avoid bringing to the text.33 Through one’s encounter 137–48; and Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2nd edn, trans. J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 331–41. 32. Hofmann’s concern to articulate an adequate theological-biblical hermeneutic that takes seriously the presuppositions of the interpreter, especially the historicity and faith commitment of the interpreter, as well as the need to understand the history of the effects of the scriptural events/texts in shaping Christian self-understanding, is similar to concerns voiced in recent discussions of hermeneutics by and about Gadamer and Ricoeur. See Becker, The Self-Giving God and Salvation History, 59–88. For a cogent critique of Gadamer and Ricoeur that takes seriously the positive contributions of each thinker, see Werner Jeanrond, Text and Interpretation as Categories of Theological Thinking (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 64–72. See also Kathryn Tanner, Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1997), 131–5. Tanner is particularly critical of Gadamer’s false assumption that “tradition” is an “object,” that is, that “traditional materials … are found, discovered, or received, and not constructed in a significant sense. Postmodern cultural theory makes the important claim that traditions are invented, meaning by that not merely that traditional materials are often new rather than old and borrowed rather than indigenous, but that they are always products of human decision in a significant sense” (Tanner, Theories of Culture, 133). Gadamer and Hofmann acknowledged, however, that construals of “tradition” encompass an openended process of human decision-making that is always in need of revision. Furthermore, while “traditions” are the product of individual decisions, they are certainly also historical, “trans-individual,” and formative of individuals. 33. For a discussion of hermeneutical “pre-understanding,” see Gadamer, Truth and Method, 265–307; Jeanrond, Text and Interpretation, 12–22; and David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 16–27. A person who is trying to understand a text is always projecting. He projects a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text. Again, the initial meaning emerges only because he is reading the text with particular expectations in regard to a certain meaning. Working out this fore-projection, which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he penetrates into the

Interpreting the Scriptures

with the text, one discovers this pre-understanding confirmed to a certain degree, yet never to the point that one’s pre-understanding is simply confirmed in toto.34 It is this latter aspect, of allowing the biblical text to speak to the self, to question the self and its values and assumptions, and to place the self into a larger, transpersonal, theological framework that leads the individual away from subjectivism and solipsism. This focus on a necessarily deep and challenging personal engagement with the text, then, is quite different from the subjectivist approach, which sees the text as a purely “inspirational” and soothing confirmation of what a person already believes or values. The interpretational reflections of Paul Ricoeur are particularly helpful in this regard. According to Ricoeur, all interpretation moves through a circular process, from “guessing” to “validation,” and then from “explanation” of the other to “selfunderstanding” by means of the encounter with a text that is other than oneself. Ricoeur has shown how all understanding follows an “arc” that begins with an initial preunderstanding of reality that we bring to the text, the restructuring and reconfiguring of this initial understanding of reality by the text, and the final intersection between the world configured by the text and the world of the interpreter.35 This hermeneutical circle need not be “vicious” (imposing a narrative and theological order where there is not one) or tautological (merely confirming what one already knows about oneself and another), but should be a dialectical process that leads to new understanding of the self and others and opens up a responsible ethic of speaking and acting.36 The goal of authentic biblical interpretation must remain exegesis, that is, leading out the meanings that the biblical texts themselves have for the individual and, beyond the individual, the message that the Scriptures have for others and for the whole world. What one ought to avoid is eisegesis, that is, “reading into” the Bible the individualistic, private meanings one wants to find there that merely confirm what one already values and believes. Eisegesis always results in the twisting and distorting of biblical passages to suit one’s own ends, which are often synonymous with an extrabiblical ideology—whether that person is aware of that ideology or not. One merely meaning, is understanding what is there … Of course, the challenge is: “How can a text be protected against misunderstanding from the start?” (Gadamer, Truth and Method, 267–8). 34. See Paul Ricoeur, “Explanation and Understanding,” in Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976), 71–88. 35. Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 3 vols, trans. Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984–8), 1.52–87. 36. Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, trans. Kathleen Blamey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992). See also Ricoeur’s own execution of the interpretation of specific biblical texts in Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination, ed. Mark I. Wallace, trans. David Pellauer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), and in Paul Ricoeur and André LaCocque, Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies, trans. David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

341

342

Fundamental Theology

uses the Bible to make it say what one wants it to say without any regard for what the passage likely meant in the past and how it has been understood over time (e.g., reading Jesus’ or Paul’s statements on marriage and the family as simply supporting “family values” of a contemporary conservative American sort that may or may not accord with a deeper exegesis of the texts). To help avoid subjective distortion in one’s reading of the Bible, there have developed over time certain basic principles of biblical interpretation, the use of which in communities of faith and scholarship can help to ward off interpretive error and mistaken uses of the Bible (as when the Bible is used to support hatred and oppression of people).

Theological hermeneutics The apostolic Scriptures are the principal source of Christian theology and the sole norm of theology in their witness to the gospel, and the canonical writings of the OT are the second main source. Yet these Scriptures are always in need of careful interpretation so that their normative meaning(s) emerge(s) more clearly. Because of the historical and cultural distance between the Scriptures and contemporary interpreters of the Scriptures, there is a need for clear interpretive principles or hermeneutics. Hermeneutics thus refers to these interpretive principles that have been defined through the centuries that assist the process of “translating” texts, “interpreting” them, “explaining” them. These principles have received special attention, however, in the wake of the changed intellectual situation of the modern period. In a broader sense the term hermeneutics also refers to the entire process of understanding itself. Below are some of the more important hermeneutical principles that are typically followed in Christian theology. A primary hermeneutical principle is that “Scripture interprets Scripture” (Sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres). This principle implies first that the clearer passages in Scripture are to shed light on the less clear. The clarity or perspicuity of Scripture does not mean, however, that everything in Scripture is clear and plain to all, only that what is essential to salvation, namely the gospel and faith, are clearly and plainly taught in the apostolic writings.37 While the “perspicuity of Scripture does not exclude its need for exposition,” the teaching/preaching of the apostles is always a clear witness to Christ and to what he has done for us for the sake of eliciting faith.38 This normative witness is what makes the teaching of an apostle “apostolic.” For this reason, too, the clearest biblical passages are always passages of gospel promise/proclamation. For example, the difficult and sometimes obscure NT passages on the “end times” of the 37. Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 69. 38. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 33.

Interpreting the Scriptures

world (many of which are found in the Book of Revelation) should be interpreted in light of the clearer gospel passages about the eternal love of God for his people. This initial hermeneutical principle also means that the biblical text itself “causes one to pay attention,” that the text itself has priority over the interpreter, that it makes a claim upon the interpreter, and that it persists as an infallible norm as it changes those who interpret it.39 According to an important Lutheran theologian: “It is not the interpreter who makes sense of the text or makes the text understandable. The text itself needs to say what it has to say for itself.”40 This engagement is not a matter of oppressing the interpreter but of also revealing who the interpreter is before God, of “interpreting the interpreter,” of opening the biblical interpreter to the word of the divine law and the promise of the divine gospel. A second fundamental hermeneutical principle involves what has traditionally been called “the analogy of faith” (analogia fidei) and “the rule of Christian love.” This principle holds that a biblical passage cannot be so interpreted that it goes contrary to the clear and essential content of the Christian faith — that is, faith in the gospel promises of God and the dictates of Christian love. The second hermeneutical principle is thus a correlative of the first: the “analogy of faith” is identical to faith/ confidence in the clearly promised gospel and the clearly taught “faith working through love” (Gal. 5.6). This principle implies that the normative meaning of any scriptural text is only discerned in relation to the hermeneutical-theological task of properly distinguishing God’s law from God’s gospel promise and of underscoring the mercy and love of God that is the basis for one’s love of the neighbor. As one of the earliest and most influential biblical interpreters, St. Augustine, famously put it: “So, if it seems to you that you have understood the divine Scriptures, or any part of them, in such a way that by this understanding you do not build up this twin love of God and neighbor, then you have not yet understood them.”41 Through the twofold focus on “faith apart from works of the law” and “faith that is working in love,” one keeps central the teaching that the prophetic and apostolic writings authenticate themselves in the life of an individual via “the internal witness of the Holy Spirit” (testimonium spiritus sancti internum). The Scriptures are authenticated precisely in their actions upon individuals and groups of individuals: acting as God’s word of law that reveals that one is a sinner; acting as God’s word of gospel that promises forgiveness, life, and salvation in Christ alone; and acting to summon forgiven sinners to allow their faith to be active in love toward others. This hermeneutical principle thus acknowledges that biblical interpretation is always about making proper distinctions. The Scriptures in their totality cannot be identified as the truth

39. Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology, 68. 40. Ibid, 69. 41. Augustine, Teaching Christianity, I.40, WSA, I/11.124.

343

344

Fundamental Theology

of the gospel, since the biblical canon bears witness to the law of God and to apostolic exhortations that are based on the gospel but not identical to the gospel. The varying messages of God that are communicated and revealed in the Scriptures must be sharply distinguished from each other in order to arrive at a normative interpretation of a scriptural text. To confuse the law and the promise is to misunderstand and misapply the Scriptures; to confuse gospel and apostolic exhortation on the basis of the gospel is to misunderstand and misapply the Scriptures. Although law, gospel, and apostolic exhortation all originate in God and relate to all of creation, the gospel message “contradicts” and “out-criticizes” the other messages by means of God’s critical work through the word of the cross. The proclamation of the gospel, then, “crosses out” the communication of judgment (which is indeed part of Scripture) and invites all the ungodly to trust and believe that they are forgiven and acceptable to God for the sake of Christ crucified. The truth of the gospel, which overcomes the truth of the law, is the hope and life of Christian faith and the focal point of the interpretation of Scripture and the discipline of theology. The truth of the gospel always then leads to exhortations about Christian love, but even these exhortations should not be confused with the truth of the gospel itself. The gift of gospel freedom is to be lived in freedom, only not in a way that serves the sinful self (Gal. 5.13). “Freedom is found not in the law, not in the individual, not in escape from the world, but in the love of Jesus Christ that we receive, which through faith in him becomes in turn the love we show to others.”42 Since both law and gospel are bound tightly together in the Scriptures, it is easy to mix them up in such a way that the gospel promise gets lost. The legal dimension of the Scriptures is always about the commending of good works and love, whereas the promissory dimension is always about the commending of God’s mercy on account of Christ, his work, and his love. The challenge of contemporary biblical interpretation is to keep God’s law and gospel in their original, divinely intended order: the divine law as subordinate and subdominant; the divine gospel as ultimate and dominant. While both the law and the gospel are divine truths that are in tension with one another, God intends the promise always to have the final say.43 Whenever the divine law has the last word, the divine promise gets displaced, left out, or worse, totally abandoned. To end up with the law, in all of its threatening power, is to make a shipwreck of faith. It can then readily construct a religious life based on rules, judgment, and fear. For the sake of faith, God subordinates the divine, accusing law 42. Gerhard Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians, trans. David Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 243. 43. I am here following a key emphasis in the theology of Robert W. Bertram (1921–2003). See, for example, his important essay, “How a Lutheran Does Theology: Some Clues from the Lutheran Confessions,” in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations, ed. William G. Weinhauer and Robert L. Wietelman (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1981), 73–87.

Interpreting the Scriptures

to the divine gospel promise. In this way God reconciles God’s wrath and mercy in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen for the sake of sinners. This law-gospel ordering is a basic key to the interpretation of Holy Scripture.44 A third principle is the need to pay attention to how a given scriptural passage has been interpreted in the history of the church and how the narratives within the Scriptures have been understood within the communities of biblical faith, inclusive of both Judaism and Christianity. The Christian Scriptures are the church’s book. The normative meaning of a scriptural text is therefore partially dependent on the history of the interpretation of that scriptural text within the history of Christian traditions. This involves also listening to how the Bible has been and is being understood within communities that are far removed from one’s local setting and even one’s immediate faith tradition. Such listening is not merely a matter of ecumenical engagement with biblical interpretations from beyond one’s theological tradition; it also involves listening to how people in Africa, South America, Asia, and other non-Western cultures read the Bible with their sets of eyes and ears, especially when their understandings challenge the comfortable readings of the Bible by Western, affluent Christians and draw attention to how the Bible has been used oppressively against women, the poor, and marginalized people from other cultures. Then, too, as a result of such listening, Christian theologians cannot help but be affected in their theological understanding by this engagement with the world, its problems, and sufferings. Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to this changed perspective that came to him and fellow anti-Nazi conspirators through their experiences of suffering and oppression, a change that certainly had implications for how Bonhoeffer himself interpreted the Bible and articulated theological understanding: It remains an experience of incomparable value that we have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcasts, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed and reviled, in short from the perspective of the suffering. If only during this time bitterness and envy have not corroded the heart; that we come to see matters great and small, happiness and misfortune, strength and weakness with new eyes; that our sense for greatness, humanness, justice and mercy has grown clearer, freer, more incorruptible; that we learn, indeed, that personal suffering is a more useful key, a more fruitful principle than personal happiness for exploring the meaning of the world in contemplation and action. But this perspective from below must not lead us to become advocates for those who are perpetually dissatisfied. Rather, out of a higher satisfaction, which in its essence is grounded beyond what is below and above, we do justice to life in all its dimensions and in this way affirm it.45

44. For the ecumenical significance of this central distinction in Christian dogmatics, see Schlink, “The Distinction between Law and Gospel,” in Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/2.779–87. 45. Bonhoeffer, “After Ten Years” [1942], in Letters and Papers from Prison, 52.

345

346

Fundamental Theology

While church tradition and the history of biblical interpretation in the various Christian communities and their contexts help to inform contemporary interpretation and theological understanding in one’s own context, the former cannot rigidly determine the latter. If church tradition, including the history of biblical interpretation, is indeed a source of theological understanding, it cannot finally be a norm. This issue remains a point of contention between Protestants, who insist on the priority and sufficiency of Scripture to interpret itself, and Roman Catholics, who teach that the Scriptures are to be interpreted authoritatively by the church’s teaching office, ultimately centered in the office of the papacy. Augustine stressed that not only had the orthodox and catholic church decided what is and is not Holy Scripture, this authoritative church alone provided the authentic interpretation of those Scriptures. “In fact,” he said, “I would not believe the gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me.”46 While Aquinas held that Christian theology is always a mix of biblical argument, correct opinions of the church fathers, and true propositions from Aristotle, he also maintained that the Roman Church alone establishes and guarantees the normative character of official Church doctrine over against theological errors. Even William of Ockham, a medieval theologian who was otherwise on occasion critical of the pope and his errors, finally appealed to the Roman Church as the one arbiter of true doctrine: “I submit myself and my words to the correction of the Catholic Church.”47 Gabriel Biel (c. 1420–1495), a highly influential medieval theologian, echoed Ockham when he stated that there could never be any real opposition between statements in Holy Scripture and the official doctrines of the Roman Church. For each of these theologians, the truth that “Holy Mother Church” (as it was affectionately called) defines as catholic and orthodox is to be believed with the same respect and devotion as the truth expressed in the Holy Scriptures. For those of this persuasion, opposition or tension, let alone contradiction, between sacred Scripture and the authority of the Roman Church is simply out of the question. The true meaning of Scripture had to be compatible within the total context of the Roman Church’s doctrinal teachings and decisions and had to be interpreted in harmony with them.48 Martin Luther’s experience led him to a very different conclusion. The church, comprised of fallible individuals, could indeed develop errant theological understandings, as could even the pope. Luther’s investigations into the history of dogmatic developments within the church led him to see a wide gap between “what

46. Augustine, Answer to the Letter of Mani known as the Foundation, 5, WSA, I/19.236. 47. William of Ockham, Compend of Papal Errors, as quoted in Gerrish, “The Word of God and the Words of Scripture,” The Old Protestantism and the New, 52–3. 48. Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 154.

Interpreting the Scriptures

Scripture teaches” and “what the Roman Church teaches.” While technically Rome’s position on papal infallibility did not achieve dogmatic status until the First Vatican Council (1869–70), the argument that the learned Catholic theologian Johann Eck (1486–1543) set forth against Luther was consistent with that doctrinal trajectory whereby the pope is Christ’s official representative (or “Vicar,” as one of his titles has it) on earth, and thus the final earthly authority for what constitutes catholic doctrine.49 Eck’s arguments forced Luther to assert that the authority of the Roman Church is subordinate to the authority of the canonical Scriptures themselves. If Luther had ever heard the old one-liner, “Is the pope catholic?,” he would have responded, at least in reference to the papacy of his day, “No, he might not be ‘catholic.’ What is ‘catholic’ is what is apostolic, and what is apostolic is what is scriptural, canonical. What is ecclesial, traditional, institutional, and ‘papal’ may conflict with what is ‘biblical.’ ” Protestant Christians insist that the teaching of the apostles is securely grounded in the biblical canon, yet such grounding does not imply that future church leaders and bishops, including the bishop of Rome, are incapable of committing theological and ecclesial errors against that biblical teaching under any circumstance. The sole reliable means and sole authority for preserving and transmitting the truths of God’s word rest in the biblical canon alone (“sola Scriptura,” “Scripture alone”), although of course the biblical canon is never alone in actual practice. Every human being is unreliable when it comes to preserving and passing along the truth of God’s word. This human unreliability necessitated the development of the biblical canon in the first place, to serve as an external norm for church leaders and communities. More recently, statements have emerged from official Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues that rightly stress the primacy of Scripture as the principal source and ground of authentic church tradition. Nevertheless, there is still ongoing tension between the two church groups regarding the critical function of scriptural teaching over against perceived errant doctrinal developments within church tradition. It must be frankly acknowledged that throughout history church councils and leaders have made false and contradictory judgments about the doctrinal content of the Christian faith, as have individual interpreters of the biblical texts. In light of this complex history, one must insist that every post-apostolic judgment about the essential content of the Christian faith and the interpretation of biblical teaching must always 49. From the first dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ (session 4 [July 18, 1870] of the First Vatican Council): We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra [lit. “from his chair”], that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.” (Tanner, 2.816; cf. Denzinger, 3073–4)

347

348

Fundamental Theology

be tested against the original apostolic witness itself. Indeed, every subsequent event in the history of the Christian church must be evaluated on the basis of this apostolic norm. “All interpretation, whether private or official, is measured against the truth of the subject matter, which is not decided by any one expositor but in the process of expository debate.”50 “The content and truth of dogma [theology] do not rest, then, on the consensus of the church. Instead, knowledge of the subject matter of Scripture produces consensus.”51 A fourth hermeneutical principle, which is in tension with the third principle, is that the modern method of historical criticism ought to be used to uncover the historic meaning(s) in the biblical writings and to address the historical distance that exists between the ancient biblical writings and all contemporary interpreters. “Every book must be read in its own spirit, and so too the book of books, the Bible.”52 The use of the historical-critical method takes seriously the historical particularity of divine revelation and helps the interpreter avoid projecting onto the biblical texts meanings that the historical dimension of those texts will not allow. The use of this methodology also allows the theological traditions that have developed within the history of the Christian communities to be continually evaluated in light of the historical biblical witness. The historical-critical method involves determining what the original biblical text likely was (weighing the many textual variants that emerged through the process of editing, copying, and transmitting the biblical writings); ascertaining the ancient literary form of the biblical text (more on this further on); discovering, so far as possible, the original context(s) and setting(s) of the biblical text, its author(s), editor(s), hearers, and readers, and their historical circumstances; apprehending the meaning which the words had for the original author(s), hearers, and readers, insofar as that can be known; and understanding the biblical passage in the light of its total context and of the background out of which it emerged. While the use of the historical-critical method will undoubtedly shed light on passages that seem initially opaque and whose meaning(s) is/are uncertain, one must also acknowledge that many biblical passages resist conclusive determination of their meaning(s). Here is one example from the OT: Exod. 4.24-26. According to the passages just before this section, the LORD has commanded Moses to go to the Egyptian king to perform all the wonders that the LORD had given to Moses. The 50. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.15. 51. Ibid., 1.16. 52. Johann Herder, Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend, in Johann Herder, Sämmtliche Werke, 33 vols in 25, ed. Bernhard Suphan (Berlin: Weidmann, 1877–1913), 10.143–4. Herder (1744–1803) was one of the most important German philosophers and theologians of the eighteenth century. He was the general superintendent of the Lutheran Church in Weimar between 1776 and his death. He studied poetry, folk songs, art, language, religion, and the philosophy of history. He viewed history as an organic process through which the essence of “humanity” comes to fuller and fuller expression.

Interpreting the Scriptures

LORD tells Moses that he will be hardening Pharoah’s heart so that he will not let the people go. The LORD tells Moses what he is then to say to the Egyptian king (cf. Exod. 4.21-23). All of a sudden, though, we read: “On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met Moses and tried to kill him. But Zipporah [Moses’ wife] took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his [Moses’? his son’s?] ‘feet’ [possibly a euphemism for the genitals] with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ So the LORD let him [the boy? Moses?] alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision’ ” (Exod. 4.24-26). What motivated God to attack Moses (or his son?)? The divine assault seems totally unmotivated. The pronouns in the Hebrew contribute to the ambiguities in the passage. While the ritual blood of the circumcision evidently serves to protect against the assaulting divine power, the episode is jarring within the narrative context. A cursory examination of several mainstream scholarly commentaries on the book of Exodus indicates that the theological meanings embedded in these enigmatic verses are disputed, to say the least.53 Other examples of opaque, challenging texts from the OT could also be cited, such as the many OT passages that refer to the ban (Heb.: ḥerem), when God commanded the ancient Israelites to completely destroy towns, people (including women and children), and their possessions (e.g., Deut. 2.31-35, 3.6; Josh. 8, 10, 11). Some legal commands in the OT are also troubling, for example, the command that a child who curses a parent should be executed (cf. Lev. 20.9). The NT, too, has its fair share of difficult passages. For example, what did Jesus mean when he told one would-be follower, who wanted first to do his duty to his father by burying him, “Let the dead bury the dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9.59-60)? What about this exchange between Jesus and his disciples: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘…the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this Scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”; and, indeed, what is written about me is being fulfilled.’ [The disciples] said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough’ ” (Lk. 22.36b-38). It is difficult to reconcile these words of Jesus with those he spoke against the use of violence (cf. Mt. 5.38-48). One could cite a great many other challenging texts that require careful interpretation, for example, the rest of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5–7), Mt. 10.37 (“You must hate father and mother”), Mk 10.17-31, and so on. A fifth hermeneutical principle is that the normative meaning of a scriptural text only becomes clear in relation to the language and narrative structure that give literary shape to the text. The interpreter must take seriously the literary character of 53. “Few texts contain more problems for the interpreter than these few verses which have continued to baffle throughout the centuries” (Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974], 95). On the pages following this statement, Childs provides a good summary of the possible theological explanations for these troubling verses.

349

350

Fundamental Theology

the biblical writings, including the fact that the OT biblical writings were originally written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, that Jesus and the disciples spoke a form of Aramaic, and that the oldest extant copies of the NT, reflecting the language of their composition, are in the common form of first-century Greek (with some Aramaic phrases). So the NT has already translated almost all of Jesus’ original Aramaic sayings into Greek. While modern, scholarly translations effectively convey the basic and central meanings of the biblical writings, important nuances are often lost in translation—even the very best ones. Thus, the college student who does not know the biblical languages ought to rely upon several good scholarly editions of the Bible and not be restricted to just one translation. A couple of other principles fall under this one. Whenever possible one should affirm the literal sense (sensus literalis), that is, the straightforward, plain sense that the words seem to have, although a deeper figurative or spiritual meaning is allowable and perhaps even necessary if the passage or story states something that at the literal level is contrary to the nature of God, goes against the analogy of faith or the truths of the law and the gospel, or conflicts with obvious sense experience (e.g., the earth being founded on pillars, the immovability of the earth, the sun moving around the earth, the creation of the universe in six days, etc.). With respect to biblical metaphors for God, the principle developed by Augustine, the Cappadocians, and Aquinas ought to be heeded: on the basis of a literal understanding of biblical metaphors for God, we can come to an understanding of what God is not (apophatic or negative theology), but arriving at true comprehension of what God is, is highly difficult, if not impossible. As Augustine recognized, all analogies for God are always “inexpressibly surpassed” by God’s nature: We are talking about God; so why be surprised if you cannot grasp it? I mean, if you can grasp it, it isn’t God. Let us rather make a devout confession of ignorance, instead of a brash profession of knowledge. Certainly, it is great bliss to have a little touch or taste of God with the mind; but completely to grasp him, to comprehend him, is utterly impossible.54

One should also note that the literal meaning of a biblical text might not necessarily be the meaning that finds the greatest degree of agreement within the Christian church, as the experience of Luther and the other Protestant reformers demonstrates. Likewise, the biblical interpreter must reflect carefully about the type of literature (the “genre”) to which a given scriptural text or passage belongs. Is it prose or poetry? Is it an address, a prayer, a monologue, a treaty, an edict, a letter? Is it an oracular saying, an invective, a lament, a liturgy, a proverb, a parable, a creed, a hymn? The biblical writers made use of many literary forms and devices (hyperbole, parable, simile, allegory, metaphoric language, fable, personification, stylized or re-created 54. Augustine, “Sermon 117,” in Sermons, WSA, III/4.211.

Interpreting the Scriptures

speech, e.g., Paul’s speeches in Acts). The genre of a text only becomes clear in relation to other kinds of writing that are similar in form and content to the text that is being interpreted. For example, most adults instinctively make interpretive adjustments when they move from reading history to poetry, or from reading a parable to reading a novel, or from reading a trial transcript to reading a comic strip. People learn to recognize genres and to interpret them accordingly. By sensing similar features from one text to the next, one is helped to understand the nature of the text and the nature of the claims a text is making. Clear thinking about genre and rhetorical structures within texts keeps the interpreter focused on the truth(s) of the genre and the purposes of the text. Clear thinking about genre and rhetorical structures keeps the interpreter from taking interpretive routes that force the text into a genre or form of writing that is foreign to the text. To misunderstand the genre of a text is to misunderstand that text. To avoid such misunderstanding, extra-biblical sources of knowledge help to eliminate false and inadequate understandings of the genres of the biblical texts. For example, the genres present in the first eleven chapters of Genesis become clearer as the stories contained in these chapters are compared with other, similar “stories of origin” from the Ancient Near East (e.g., Babylonian creation myths, the stories of Gilgamesh, extra-biblical flood stories, etc.). Discerning the genre of a text keeps the interpreter of this text from forcing it into a genre that is foreign to it. Thus, the stories in the first chapters of Genesis are not “pure myth” (as in “false story”), nor are they “historical report” (as you would find in a modern history textbook), nor do they fit within the modern genre of “scientific treatise.” The texts in Gen. 1–11 make profound claims to truth without necessarily being understood as either “false story” or “pure historical description” or “scientific treatise.” When encountering a text like Gen. 1–3, people might be tempted to go after its truth by reading it as a kind of history similar to the Patriarchal narratives (Gen. 12–50), but with the rise of modern science (geology, astronomy, biology, etc.), seeking the truth/meaning of Gen. 1–3 in a literal-historical reading for the how of creation leads to a dead end. When one identifies these chapters as “a story of origin,” like the Babylonian creation myths or the Gilgamesh Epic, then Gen. 1–3 becomes accessible as a serious, profound narrative about the what and the why of the origin of the cosmos as God’s creation and of the enigma (mystery) of humanity’s place in it. The example of Mt. 5.27-30—where Jesus says that hands should be cut off and eyes put out if they are the cause of sin—may also prove illustrative. What kind of writing is this? In its context(s), what did it mean? What does it mean now? Some individuals have taken the passage quite literally, as did the college student who admitted himself to the hospital because he was missing an eye. When asked what had happened, he responded that because of Jesus’ teaching in Mt. 5.27-30, he had gouged out his eye after looking at pornography: “Since my eye caused me to sin, I gouged it out”. Did this young man understand these words of Jesus correctly?

351

352

Fundamental Theology

Would Jesus really want us to gouge out our eyes or cut off our hands? What about his statement that sin comes “from within,” “out of the heart” (Mk 7.21-23) and thus is not something that can be adequately handled merely by some external action (e.g., cutting off one’s hand or gouging out one’s eye)? Or his actions to heal people, which indicate his concern for health and physical wholeness? Most likely, this Matthean passage is hyperbolic, an attention-getting hyperbole or an exaggeration to make a point. Surely Jesus is concerned about the health and well-being of human bodies and would not want people actually to harm themselves in this way. But the more pertinent point: sin comes from the heart. Jesus’ statement here is an example of his preaching of “the law,” to warn and admonish his hearers out of his concern for their eternal welfare—about the urgency and seriousness of (metaphorically!) cutting out this deadly, diseased tumor of the heart. Only repentance and faith, in response to the gospel, can bring about the death of sin, not the gouging out of one’s eye or the cutting off of some other body part. A sixth and final hermeneutical principle is that one must always balance “what a text has meant in the past” with “what a text means today.”55 The awareness of the historical and cultural distance between the biblical texts and all contemporary interpreters, coupled with the awareness that the Christian churches have themselves undergone some change in theological understanding over time, leads one to be open to the possibility that a given scriptural text may mean something different today from what it has meant in the past. For example, the statements in the Bible that reflect a pre-Copernican worldview are not understood the same today as they were prior to the seventeenth century. These are now understood figuratively, whereas before they were likely understood as straightforward descriptions of nature that supported a geocentric worldview. (We understand that, when we still say “the sun rises” or “the moon just set,” that we are speaking figuratively, from perception, and not making a scientific statement.) Much of the OT law has been set aside with the coming of Christ and is no longer binding on Christians. The statements in the NT about “honoring the emperor” (1 Pet. 2.17b) or about slaves being submissive to their masters (Eph. 6.5-9; Col. 3.22-25; 1 Tim. 6.1-2; Titus 2.9-10; 1 Pet. 2.18-25), or of women being subordinate to men (1 Cor. 11, 14.33b-36; Eph. 5.22-24; Col. 3.18; 1 Tim. 2.9-15), no longer have the same meaning today as they did in the centuries before the rise of modern democracy and the awareness of basic human rights. As Lutheran theologian and bishop Krister Stendahl (1921–2008) has noted, the new freedom that has been given in Christ was neither perfectly comprehended nor fully actualized in the early church. It took time for the new and radical teaching about individual and social equality and freedom in the words and actions of Jesus and Paul 55. This point is nicely made in the Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies (St. Louis: CTCR, 1967), 10.

Interpreting the Scriptures

to become more fully realized.56 While there are key insights into this new freedom in the NT, it has taken Christians many centuries to flesh out the implications of the gospel and Christian love on the relation of slave and free, men and women, within the new creation that has dawned in Christ. Sixteenth-century Christians, like Luther, did not worry about eating blood sausage or food from strangled animals, even though the apostles clearly forbade such practices. Likewise, most modern Christians do not think Christian women sin if they have short hair (or no hair), or if they go out in public without a veil (contrary to the literal sense of 1 Cor. 11). Very few American Christians understand Eph. 6.5-9, which enjoins slaves to perform joyful service to masters, in the way that a majority of pre-Civil War southern Americans did, and very few contemporary preachers will expound on this text as if nothing has changed since the first century, let alone since 1865 or 1965. The same is true regarding biblical passages that reflect outmoded understandings of the relationship between men and women in church and society. It is important to stress that these are “principles,” not “rules,” that if followed correctly will automatically lead to the “right” or “true” interpretation of a given biblical passage. There are no pure a priori or timeless principles that will lead ineluctably to a faithful understanding and contemporary application of biblical teaching. Hermeneutics is more an art than a science; it is more than merely following a set of rules or principles. Rather, biblical interpretation is always a matter of wrestling with the scriptural text, of wrestling ever again with how it is interpreting the one who reads it and how it interprets the world. The challenge of reading the Bible is a continuing process of understanding the material contents of the Scriptures in their witness to Christ, to the divine law, to the gospel promise, and to apostolic and prophetic exhortation that is grounded in Christian love. A lifelong relationship develops, in fact a love relationship is formed, between the biblical text that is at hand for study, with its freeing authority, and those who interpret it, within the freedom that is granted them; it is also within certain confines that they examine the text critically, this very text that interprets them and gives them understanding … It hardly needs mentioning that this love relationship cannot last for a short time only; it describes a faithful relationship that lasts a lifetime.57

Luther’s final words, written on a scrap of paper two days before he died, ought to give pause to everyone involved in the pursuit of biblical understanding: No one can understand Virgil in the Bucolics and the Georgics unless he has been a shepherd or a farmer for five years. No one can understand Cicero in his letters—so 56. Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women: A Case Study in Hermeneutics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966). Of course, we must at the same time acknowledge that it is not an easy matter to say what modern or “democratic” norms are these days. 57. Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology, 91–2.

353

354

Fundamental Theology

I feel—unless he has spent forty years in a prominent office of state. No one should suppose that he has even an inkling of an understanding of the authors of Holy Scripture, unless he has governed the churches for a hundred years, together with the prophets. Thus, John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles represent an immense miracle. “Do not lay hands upon the divine Aeneid, but bow down and honor its tracks” [the Latin poet Statius]. We are beggars. That is true.58

Excursus: Martin Luther, “Concerning the Study of Theology” (1539)59 Moreover, I want to point out to you a correct way of studying theology, for I have had practice in that. If you keep to it, you will become so learned that you yourself could (if it were necessary) write books just as good as those of the fathers and councils, even as I (in God) dare to presume and boast, without arrogance and lying, that in the matter of writing books I do not stand much behind some of the fathers. Of my life I can by no means make the same boast. This is the way taught by holy King David (and doubtlessly used also by all the patriarchs and prophets) in the one hundred nineteenth Psalm. There you will find three rules, amply presented throughout the whole Psalm. They are Oratio (prayer), Meditatio (meditation), Tentatio (spiritual crisis, turmoil, and trial). Firstly, you should know that the Holy Scriptures constitute a book that turns the wisdom of all other books into foolishness, because not one teaches about eternal life except this one alone. Therefore, you should straightway despair of your reason and understanding. With them you will not attain eternal life, but, on the contrary, your presumptuousness will plunge you and others with you out of heaven (as happened to Lucifer) into the abyss of hell. But kneel down in your little room (Mt. 6.6) and pray to God with real humility and earnestness, that he through his dear Son may give you his Holy Spirit, who will enlighten you, lead you, and give you understanding. Thus, you see how David keeps praying in the above-mentioned Psalm, “Teach me, Lord, instruct me, lead me, show me,” and many more words like these. Although he well knew and daily heard and read the text of Moses and other books besides, still he wants to lay hold of the real teacher of the Scriptures himself, so that he may not seize

58. Luther, WA, 48, 241, 2ff [1546]; cf. WA (Table-Talk) 5, nos 5468, 5477. The exact text has not been preserved. See Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, 3 vols (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985–92), 3.374–5. 59. An excerpt from Martin Luther’s “Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of Luther’s German Writings,” LW1, 34.285–8 (trans. modified). Some of the translator’s footnotes have been omitted. This copyrighted material from the American Edition of Luther’s Works is used here by permission of Fortress Press.

Interpreting the Scriptures

upon them pell-mell with his reason and become his own teacher. For such practice gives rise to factious spirits who allow themselves to nurture the delusion that the Scriptures are subject to them and can be easily grasped with their reason, as if they were Markolf60 or Aesop’s Fables, for which no Holy Spirit and no prayers are needed. Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not only in your heart but also externally, by actually repeating and comparing oral speech and literal words of the book, reading and rereading them with diligent attention and reflection, so that you may see what the Holy Spirit means by them. And take care that you do not grow weary or think that you have done enough when you have read, heard, and spoken them once or twice, and that you then have complete understanding. You will never be a particularly good theologian if you do that, for you will be like untimely fruit that falls to the ground before it is half ripe. Thus, you see in this same Psalm how David constantly boasts that he will talk, meditate, speak, sing, hear, read, by day and night and always, about nothing except God’s Word and commandments. For God will not give you his Spirit without the external Word; so take your cue from that. His command to write, preach, read, hear, sing, speak, and so on outwardly was not given in vain. Thirdly, there is tentatio, Anfechtung (spiritual crisis, turmoil, and trial). This is the touchstone that teaches you not only to know and understand but also to experience how right, how true, how sweet, how lovely, how mighty, how comforting God’s Word is, wisdom beyond all wisdom. Thus, you see how David, in the Psalm mentioned, complains so often about all kinds of enemies, arrogant princes or tyrants, false spirits and factions whom he must tolerate because he meditates, that is, because he is occupied with God’s Word (as has been said) in all manner of ways. For as soon as God’s Word takes root and grows in you, the devil will harry you, and will make a real doctor of you, and by his assaults (Anfechtungen) will teach you to seek and love God’s Word. I myself (if you will permit me, mere mouse-dirt, to be mingled with pepper) am deeply indebted to my papists that through the devil’s raging they have beaten, oppressed, and distressed me so much. That is to say, they have made a fairly good theologian of me, which I would not have become otherwise. And I heartily grant them what they have won in return for making this of me, honor, victory, and triumph, for that’s the way they wanted it. There now, with that you have David’s rules. If you study hard in accord with his example, then you will also sing and boast with him in the Psalm, “The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces” (Ps. 119.72). Also, “Thy commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimonies are my meditation. 60. The very popular medieval legend of Solomon and Markolf was treated in a verse epic, pamphlets, dialogues, and farces. The figure of Markolf, a sly and unprincipled rogue, was known in Germany as early as the tenth century.

355

356

Fundamental Theology

I understand more than the aged, for I keep thy precepts,” and so on (Ps. 119.98-100). And it will be your experience that the books of the fathers will taste stale and putrid to you in comparison. You will not only despise the books written by adversaries but the longer you write and teach the less you will be pleased with yourself. When you have reached this point, then do not be afraid to hope that you have begun to become a real theologian, who can teach not only the young and imperfect Christians but also the maturing and perfect ones. For indeed, Christ’s church has all kinds of Christians in it who are young, old, weak, sick, healthy, strong, energetic, lazy, simple, wise, and so on. If, however, you feel and are inclined to think you have made it, flattering yourself with your own little books, teaching, or writing, because you have done it beautifully and preached excellently; if you are highly pleased when someone praises you in the presence of others; if you perhaps look for praise and would sulk or quit what you are doing if you did not get it—if you are of that stripe, dear friend, then take yourself by the ears, and if you do this in the right way you will find a beautiful pair of big, long, shaggy donkey ears. Then do not spare any expense! Decorate them with golden bells, so that people will be able to hear you wherever you go, point their fingers at you, and say, “See, See! There goes that clever beast, who can write such exquisite books and preach so remarkably well.” That very moment you will be blessed and blessed beyond measure in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, in that heaven where hellfire is ready for the devil and his angels. To sum up, let us be proud and seek honor in the places where we can. But in this book the honor is God’s alone, as it is said, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5.5), to whom be glory, world without end, Amen.

Questions for review and discussion 1. What is meant by “hermeneutics?” Why do people disagree about the interpretation of the Bible? Why is this such a big problem in Christian theology? In addition to the questions that appear in the first paragraph of this chapter, can you identify some other issues on which Christians disagree in their interpretation of the Bible? 2. Why is the author critical of the idea of biblical “inerrancy?” Do you agree with the author’s criticisms? Why or why not? 3. What are Troeltsch’s three principles of historical criticism? Why have these principles created problems for contemporary Christians? Do you agree with the author’s criticisms of historicism? Why or why not? 4. Many people merely interpret the Bible as great literature. What does the author see as problematic in this approach?

Interpreting the Scriptures













5. Do you agree that the Bible has contents that we are trying to uncover, or do you think people can legitimately make the Bible say whatever they want it to mean? 6. What is meant by the distinction between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith?” Can you identify some tensions between “Jesus as he really was in the first century” and “Christ as he came to be believed in by later Christians?” Or do you think that this might be a false antithesis? What has Albert Schweitzer demonstrated about the presuppositions of all who have sought to find Jesus “behind” the apostolic witness to Jesus? 7. What is meant by “the hermeneutical circle?” How do the principles of theological interpretation that are set forth at the end of the chapter influence the hermeneutical circle? 8. What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? Do you really think it is possible not to read into the Bible meanings you want to find there? Or do you think that exegesis is really possible? Which presuppositions do you yourself bring to the task of understanding the Biblical writings? 9. Which of the hermeneutical principles that are outlined in the chapter do you think is most important for properly understanding the biblical writings? Which of the principles is the most difficult to practice? Why? 10. How do Lutherans and Roman Catholics differ on the understanding of the relationship between “Scripture” and “church?” What are the strengths and weaknesses of each church body’s position on this relationship?

Suggestions for further reading General reference works A. K. M. Adam, ed., Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000). [Offers a helpful overview of basic postmodern approaches to biblical interpretation.] Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). [Helpful overview of resources for the scholarly study of the Christian Bible.] John Hayes, ed., Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 2 vols (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998). [Excellent initial resource for finding basic information on Bible scholars and theories.] Steven McKenzie, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation, 2 vols (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 4th edn (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 2011). [Defines all the major terms in biblical studies and summarizes the work of the major figures.]

357

358

Fundamental Theology

W. Randolph Tate, Handbook for Biblical Interpretation: An Essential Guide to Methods, Terms, and Concepts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012). [Helpful resource that complements Soulen’s edition.]

Scholarly editions of the Bible Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 10th edn (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993). [Gives both Greek and English versions of the four canonical Gospels in parallel columns in order to compare and contrast individual units of material (pericopes).] A. Alt, Hans Bardtke, Otto Eissfeldt, Karl Elliger, Paul Kahle, Rudolf Kittel, Wilhelm Rudolph, Hans Peter Rüger, Adrian Schenker, Gerard E. Weil, and J. Ziegler, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edn (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). [Scholarly edition of the Hebrew Bible.] Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Maria Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edn (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2022). [Scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament.] Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 2nd edn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). [Scholarly edition of the Septuagint.]

Scholarly editions of the Bible in English The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edn, New American Bible Revised Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). [Includes study notes that reflect a Roman Catholic theological perspective.] HarperCollins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2006). [A major ecumenical study Bible that includes notes by reputable international scholars.] The Learning Bible, Contemporary English Version (New York: American Bible Society, 2000). [Include exhaustive notes, charts, and maps that help to explain cultural and historical aspects of ancient biblical texts.] New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 5th edn, New Revised Standard Version (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). [The major ecumenical study Bible that includes notes by reputable international scholars from a variety of religious backgrounds.] The NIV Study Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). [Includes study notes that reflect an American evangelical theological perspective] The Oxford Study Bible, Revised English Bible with Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). [Includes study notes that reflect an Anglican theological perspective.]

Interpreting the Scriptures

Concordances of the English Bible The NRSV Concordance Unabridged, ed. John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991). [Provides all of the English words that appear in the New Revised Standard Version, which is the key scholarly translation of the Bible in the English language today.] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1890). [This is a classic reference work for the King James Version of the Bible. It is still useful today because of its analytical features which allow one to find all occurrences of a given Hebrew or Greek word without knowing either language.]

Bible dictionaries John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, eds., The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). [A splendid reference work that covers all the major topics relating to the Judaism of Jesus’ time.] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols (New York: Doubleday, 1992). [The major scholarly Bible dictionary in the English language. Exhaustive entries with scholarly bibliographies. This is a key reference work for college students doing work in biblical studies.] David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). [A standard one-volume dictionary.] Mark Allen Powell, ed., HarperCollin’s Bible Dictionary, rev. edn (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011). [A good single-volume reference work.] Catherine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006). [This resource should be among the first places to turn for any topic related to the Christian Bible.]

Bible atlases Adrian Curtis, ed., Oxford Bible Atlas, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). [The major scholarly Bible atlas in the English language. More than just a collection of maps, it provides a lot of cultural and historical information on the biblical world.] James B. Pritchard, ed., The HarperCollins Concise Atlas of the Bible (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1997). [An inviting resource that has easy-to-read maps and charts and a lot of cultural and historical information.]

Lexical aids G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry, and Holger Gzella, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 vols (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). [A major reference work for theological study of the Old Testament.] D. J. A. Clines, Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2009). [Standard reference work for interpreting Hebrew terms in the OT.]

359

360

Fundamental Theology

Frederick W. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn, trans. William F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). [The standard lexicon for English-speaking scholars, based on the sixth edition of Walter Bauer’s lexicon.] Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76). [German-based scholarly entries on all the key Greek words in the NT. Although somewhat dated, this reference work still provides useful information and insights.] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, 3 vols, trans. and ed. James Ernest (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994).

Biblical commentaries Most academic libraries use the Library of Congress classification system. In this system, scholarly biblical commentaries are found in the “BS” section (for “biblical studies”!), organized by the order in which the individual biblical books appear in the traditional Christian biblical canon.

Brief introductions to biblical hermeneutics Roger Boraas, Peter Stuhlmacher, Craig Phillips, and Gerhard Sauter, “Hermeneutics,” EC, 2.531–9. John Bowden, “Biblical Criticism,” in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. John Bowden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 146–56. Pierre Bühler, “Hermeneutics,” OCCT, 295–7. Shalom Carmy and Frederick W. Danker, “Biblical Exegesis,” ER, 2.136–52. Aldo Natale Terrin, Christoph Dohmen, Gerd Schunack, Günter Figal, Werner Jeanrond, Johannes Fischer, Henning Schröer, and Markus Vinzent, “Hermeneutics,” RPP, 6.87–96. Crina Gschwandtner, “Hermeneutics,” ODCC, 1.880. Van A. Harvey, “Hermeneutics,” ER, 6.279–87. I. H. Marshall, “Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Bible,” in the New Dictionary of Theology, 453–5. Eckart Otto and Hans Weder, “Biblical Scholarship,” RPP, 2.70–83. Daria Pezzoli-Olgiati, Hubert Cancik, Theodor Seidl, Udo Schnelle, Wolfgang A. Bienert, Siegried Raeder, Christoph Bultmann, Rudolf Smend, Hans-Ruedi Weber, Michael Meyer-Blanck, Jeanne Stevenson-Moesner, Gerlinde StrohmaierWiederanders, Beate Ego, Joseph Dan, and Andrew Rippen, “Exegesis,” RPP, 4.729–46. Dietrich Ritschl, “Biblicism,” EC, 1.255–6. Rudolf Smend and Jürgen Roloff, “Exegesis, Biblical,” EC, 2.237–43.

Interpreting the Scriptures

Marie-Theres Wacker, Udo Schnelle, Detlev Dormeyer, Daniel Patte, Carolyn Osiek, Hartmut Raguse, Luise Schottroff, Thomas Schmeller, and Ingo Broer, “Biblical Criticism,” RPP, 2.58–64.

On biblical hermeneutics and exegesis Rudolf Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology & Other Basic Writings, ed. and trans. Schubert M. Ogden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). [This collection of essays sets forth Bultmann’s understanding of the interpretation of the NT and his project of demythologizing it.] Hans Conzelmann and Andreas Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the Principles and Methods of N.T. Exegesis, 8th edn, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011). [A classic university-level introduction to NT studies. This work offers an excellent set of actual exegetical exercises and activities.] Gerhard Ebeling, “The Significance of the Critical Historical Method for Church and Theology in Protestantism,” in Word and Faith, 17–61. [Classic Protestant defense of the need for historical-critical methods in the study of the biblical texts.] Gerhard Ebeling, “Word of God and Hermeneutics,” in Word and Faith, 303–32. [Ebeling’s essay stresses the importance of hermeneutics in the process of theological understanding.] Stephen E. Fowl, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). [Fowl engages the hermeneutical reflections of Childs, Watson, and Jeanrond in support of his own approach that seeks to form a bridge between historical-critical biblical study and a theological understanding of Christian Scripture.] Stephen E. Fowl, “Scripture,” OHST, 345–61. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “The Bible, the Global Context, and the Discipleship of Equals,” in Reconstructing Christian Theology (ed. Chopp and Taylor), 79–98. [A classic essay that sets forth four key “moments” in a critical feminist approach to biblical interpretation.] Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Introduction (New York: Crossroad, 1993). [A basic introduction to feminist hermeneutics.] Michael J. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009). [Provides a basic orientation to biblical interpretation and key methodological steps.] Michael J. Gorman, ed., Scripture and Its Interpretation: A Global, Ecumenical Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). [A scholarly, yet readable, introduction to the Bible that also gives an overview of how the Scriptures have been read from ecumenical, intercontinental, and thematic perspectives.] Robert M. Grant and David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). [An excellent overview of the history of Biblical interpretation from the early church through postmodernism.]

361

362

Fundamental Theology

Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). [This book provides helpful summaries and analyses of the principal interpreters of the Bible since the seventeenth century.] John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook, 4th edn (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2022). [A standard introduction to the basic methods and scholarly approaches to the study of the Christian Bible.] Werner G. Jeanrond, Text and Interpretation as Categories of Theological Thinking, trans. Thomas J. Wilson (New York: Crossroad, 1988). [Brief introduction to theological hermeneutics from a Roman Catholic scholar. Tends to downplay or ignore several key figures—Hofmann, for one—but it gives a good introduction to many other figures and developments.] André LaCocque and Paul Ricoeur, Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies, trans. David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997). [Presents six dialogues between Ricoeur, one of the most important scholars of philosophical hermeneutics from the past century, and LaCocque, a major scholar of the Hebrew Bible, on six OT stories.] Robert Morgan with John Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). [A good summary of the main scholarly developments in twentiethcentury theological hermeneutics and the interpretation of the Bible.] Paul Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination, trans. David Pellauer, ed. Mark I. Wallace (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). [This collection of essays is the best entry into the study of Ricoeur’s theological hermeneutics.] Paul Ricoeur, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, ed. Lewis S. Mudge (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). [Earlier collection of essays that present Ricoeur’s initial examination of theological hermeneutics, including his engagement with Bultmann’s program of demythologizing.] Frederico Alredo Roth, Justin Marc Smith, Kirsten Sonkyo Oh, Alice Yafeh-Deigh, and Kay Higuera Smith, Reading the Bible around the World: A Student’s Guide to Global Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022). [An excellent resource for understanding multiple ways in which people around the world interpret the Bible.] David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). [Tracy sets forth a practical approach to theological hermeneutics that is based on the models of conversation and critical argument.] Ernst Troeltsch, “Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology,” in Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 11–32. [Classic essay that explains Troeltsch’s understanding of the difference between an historical-critical approach to the biblical writings and a dogmatic-theological one. He sets forth the three key principles of historical criticism in this essay.] Francis Watson, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). [Watson is critical of historical-criticism and stresses the need to recover a properly theological approach to the Scriptures on the basis of a kind of postliberal approach.]

Interpreting the Scriptures

Francis Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997). [Stresses the Bible as the sacred Scripture of the church first and foremost and is critical of academic approaches that distort or subvert this basic position.]

Online resources for biblical studies Bible Hub (https://bible​hub.com) [Provides multiple versions of the Bible in English, as well as links to scholarly resources.] (accessed July 31, 2023). Bible Odyssey (https://www.bible​odys​sey.org) [A comprehensive website operated by the Society of Biblical Literature, the principal international scholarly organization devoted to biblical studies.] (accessed July 31, 2023). Candler School of Theology, Emory University (https://pitts.emory.edu) [This website provides many links to research guides relating to biblical studies.] (accessed July 31, 2023). Logos (https:/logos.com) [Provides commercial and some free resources for the devotional and academic study of the Bible.] (accessed July 31, 2023). McGill University (https://www.mcg​ill.ca/relig​ious​stud​ies/onl​ine-resour​ces/subj​ect/ bib​les) [Provides links to English versions of the Bible and to biblical resources.] (accessed July 31, 2023). New English Translation (https://netbi​ble.org) [Provides thousands of scholarly notes about this venerable translation.] (accessed July 31, 2023). Oxford Bibliographies Online (https://oxfor​dbib​liog​raph​ies.org) [The link to “Biblical Studies” provides further links to topics relating to the Bible and its interpretation.] (accessed July 31, 2023). Tyndale House (https://tynda​leho​use.com) [This site is operated by a research library in Cambridge, England, which provides access to resources relating to biblical studies.] (accessed July 31, 2023). Yale Library (https://gui​des.libr​ary.yale.edu/bible/websi​tes) [Provides links to excellent scholarly resources for the study of the Christian Bible.] (accessed July 31, 2023).

363

10 Jesus as the Center of Salvation History This chapter examines the apostolic kerygma about Jesus, the historical sources for his life, and the nature of the canonical Gospels as narrative expansions of the apostolic proclamation about Jesus, his teachings, his actions, his death, his resurrection from the dead, and his glorification. The chapter ends by examining the gift of the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised and the dawn of the new creation.

A salvation-historical approach to the Bible While there are multiple ways of viewing the overall “shape” of the Bible, the one set forth here makes use of a classic understanding that sees the Bible as the normative witness to God’s mighty deeds of salvation in history. In this perspective, the Bible is essentially the key witness to God’s acts of creation, redemption, and new creation. While the OT contains credal statements that summarize ancient Israel’s historical memory of God’s foundational acts of promise-making (to Abram and later to King David), of deliverance (centrally under Moses), and of covenant-making (Gen. 15; Exod. 20; 2 Sam. 7), the NT contains hymnic, credal, and kerygmatic (proclamatory) statements that give succinct summaries of God’s further acts of divine salvation through Jesus—his life, death, resurrection, and ascension—and of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Among the most prominent of these NT summary statements are the early Jewish-Christian canticles in Luke’s Gospel (1.46-55 [“the Magnificat”] and 1.68-79 [“the Benedictus”]), as well as the sermonic speeches that are found in Luke’s second book, the Acts of the Apostles.1 These NT confessional statements recount God’s

1. The Magnificat and the Benedictus are canticles that are sung daily by Christians around the world. In Western Christianity, the song of Zechariah (the Benedictus) is sung as part of morning prayer (“matins”), while the song of Mary (the Magnificat) is sung during evening prayer (“vespers”). For these daily songs,

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

earlier redemptive deeds and faith-eliciting promises, but they then proceed to assert that God has fulfilled and surpassed those earlier promises through the messianic action of Jesus. He is linked explicitly to God’s covenants with Abraham and David. The speeches or sermons in Acts also focus on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and his exaltation as the Lord over all creation. Such biblical assertions serve to define the basic elements in early Christian preaching about Jesus, who is confessed to be the Christ, the Son of God, and the Lord—OT titles that are among several others ascribed to Jesus in the NT. But these confessional statements also provide a framework of “promise and fulfillment” that is one way of understanding the biblical texts and formulating a coherent biblical theology. Within this salvation-historical understanding of biblical theology, Jesus is “the end of history” who has appeared “in the midst of history.”2 Thus, Jesus Christ is the “center” or “focal point” of all of history, which itself is grounded in God’s eternal plan of salvation. In this plan, which is only unveiled through the Scriptures and perceptible by faith, Christ is the second Adam, the new human being, who has been revealed in the midst of the old creation. In Jesus “we have the central human factor … His history alone is originally and immediately the history of the covenant of salvation and revelation inaugurated by God.”3 “The meaning and mystery of the creation and preservation of the world is revealed in salvation history [Heilsgeschichte]. However, the meaning and mystery of salvation history is Christ. Here, too, then, we must speak finally and supremely about him—not only as the Last, but as both the First

see ELW, 303, 314–15. Both of these gospel canticles have been paraphrased in the form of hymns. For the Benedictus, see “Blessed Be the God of Israel” (ELW #250) and “Blessed Be the God of Israel” (ELW #552). For the Magnificat, see “My Soul Proclaims Your Greatness” (ELW #251), “My Soul Does Magnify the Lord” (ELW #882), and “My Soul Now Magnifies the Lord” (ELW #573). These canticles have also been arranged by various composers through the centuries, for example, J. S. Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, and many others. 2. Johannes von Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung im Alten und im Neuen Testamente [Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Old and New Testaments] 2 vols (Nördlingen: C. H. Beck, 1841–4), 1.39–40; Johannes von Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis [The Scriptural Proof], 2 vols, 2nd edn (Nördlingen: C. H. Beck, 1857–60), 1.35, 54–5. More recent theologians have used similar language to describe Jesus’ resurrection from the dead by God: “As the beginning of the general resurrection of the dead, i.e., as the beginning of the end of history in the midst of history” (Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden [New York: Harper & Row, 1974], 162). For a critical analysis of Hofmann’s concept of salvation history (Heilsgeschichte), see Becker, The SelfGiving God and Salvation History, 23–5, 168–72, 223–32, and 244–57. This salvation-historical approach to the Scriptures aligns closely with that of the important NT scholar Martin Hengel (1926–2009). Cf. Martin Hengel, “ ‘Salvation History’: The Truth of Scripture and Modern Theology,” in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom, ed. David F. Ford and Graham Stanton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 229–44. 3. Barth, CD, 3/2.160.

365

366

Fundamental Theology

and the Last—if we are to speak correctly about the steadfastness and operation of God’s immutable vitality.”4 Thus, salvation history is not separate from the rest of human history; rather, it embraces and fulfills all history within itself. The self-presentation of Christ in the world provides the key to the meaning and purpose of humankind. The end of history, which has been revealed in the middle of history, provides the fullest understanding of God’s ultimate intention toward his creation. That divine intention is nicely summarized in one of Paul’s statements about the good news, or gospel: “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (Rom. 11.32). Before proceeding further, however, I need to point out that some salvation-historical models for understanding biblical theology are inadequate. One particularly problematic model is “dispensationalism,” a nineteenth-century fundamentalist-Christian development that seeks to divide world history neatly into distinct covenantal segments on the basis of isolated and literalistic readings of some biblical passages (e.g., Gen. 1; Rev. 20; 1 Thess. 4.17). We can dispense with the unbiblical notions of “the Rapture” and “millennialism,” a literal “Armageddon,” and so on. The understanding of salvation history I am proposing sees Scripture as unfolding on the basis of the biblical promises to Abram and David and their fulfillment in Jesus, the one mediator between God and humankind, whose achievement of reconciliation is offered to all (2 Cor. 5.19-21). Other models of salvation history are problematic for different reasons. Hofmann’s view, for example, was heavily influenced by an idealistic idea of history, one that interpreted history as a linear, progressive process of development, a notion that has difficulty accounting for disruptions, contingencies, and novelties in history. Moreover, Hofmann did not really appreciate the possibilities of empirical-critical historical investigation to ascertain and evaluate historical facts. He also had difficulty accepting key findings of historical-critical research about the various nonhistorical genres found in the Scriptures, especially in the first and last chapters of the Bible. While Hofmann’s theology of history shares similarities to totalistic views of history common in German idealistic philosophy in the nineteenth century, he was on firmer ground when he confessed that history’s meaning is received by faith in Christ and maintained in the posture of hope. Hofmann’s view of salvation history could have been strengthened if he had given more attention to the centrality of the suffering and cross of Jesus, the stark realities of sin and evil, the hiddenness of God in history, and the Scriptures’ own witness to the mysterious ways of God. “Only in faith, that is, in the perspective of the crucified Christ and his salvation, can the Christian recognize God’s action in the present and in history as judgment and grace.”5 Despite the limitations of some salvation-historical models for understanding the relationship between the OT and the NT, we cannot avoid recognizing how 4. Ibid., 2/1.512 (trans. modified). 5. Hengel, “Salvation History,” 233.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

thoroughly Christianity and its parent religion Judaism are bound up with history, both in a universal sense (God as the Lord of creation) and in a particular sense (connected to human lives and events in time). The Scriptures begin with primeval stories of origin, whose mythical character cannot be avoided, and they end with eschatological language that promises creation’s consummation. The mythical, primal texts in Gen. 1–11—which all follow a similar pattern of sin, judgment, and divine mercy—set up the foundational promise of blessing to Abram (Gen. 12.3), whose fulfillment provides the key to a theological understanding of the rest of Holy Scripture and the whole of history. Nor can we avoid a basic promise of the NT regarding Jesus as the fulfillment of this Abrahamic promise. The Scriptures bear witness to God’s mighty deeds in the midst of history that accomplish and surpass the divine promises contained within those same Scriptures. According to this salvation-historical model of biblical theology, God’s intention for creation is one of divine blessing, and this merciful promise may be understood as setting the plot or at least a principal theme for the whole of the Christian Bible— and of human history. The motif of divine blessing surfaces in several important places in the Scriptures, for example, in the Aaronic benediction: “The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace” (Num. 6.24-26). This benediction is often spoken at the end of Christian worship services as well. God’s subsequent covenant with the descendants of Abram, ancient Israel, was established through the divine deliverance from Egypt and the subsequent giving of the law to Moses, as recorded in Exod. 20. A further promise—that the “House of David” would be established in justice and peace forever—was spoken to King David through the prophet Nathan, as narrated in 2 Sam. 7. These three divine actions (and the memories about them that are embedded in various biblical traditions), which involve the three central figures of the OT—Abram/Abraham, Moses, and David— are crucial for understanding the basic narrative arc of the OT. The unfolding of this story about God’s promise of blessing leads to fundamental questions about the abiding character of the promises to Abram and David, which the NT answers by proclaiming the message about Jesus. The prophets under the old covenant appealed to the Mosaic law as the standard by which Israel was judged. The prophets used that law to interpret the destruction of the nation as the judgment of God on Israel’s failures to remain faithful to the covenant. Yet the unconditional promises to Abram and David remained valid, even in the context of the broken Mosaic covenant, as foundational for God’s eternal plan and purpose for Israel and, through Israel, for the rest of the creation. Those promises provided the grounds for the hope of a restoration of the people of God, at a time when the ancient covenantal people, exiled and suffering in foreign lands, wondered about God’s future for them and their subsequent generations. Would God keep his elementary promise to Abram? Is God’s ultimate intention for his creation one of blessing? What of the

367

368

Fundamental Theology

promise to David? And what of the Mosaic covenant, with all of its cultic rules and regulations, especially after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed for a second time in AD 70? In contrast to deficient understandings of salvation history, the biblical witness is to a history that is marked by fracture, disruption, a series of crises, and repeated disasters, which are then themselves interrupted by new promises of divine mercy and faithful action. God is depicted as steadfastly acting in accord with God’s own covenantal faithfulness to Abraham and David, while God’s people are depicted as repeatedly failing to live in accord with God’s will and to trust God as God seeks to be trusted. God repeatedly raised up prophets to speak God’s word in new and differing conditions. God speaks against faithlessness and disobedience, and when God acts to renew the old covenant or to do something entirely new, as took place in the figure of Jesus, God is not harking back to restore an earlier condition. Rather, God is starting anew, providing a fresh basis for his ongoing relationship with his people and for fulfilling his fundamental promises. The word of the Lord is thus a creative word, a word that reinterprets the past, disrupts the present, and calls for faith in God as one moves into the future that God has prepared. As we noted in Chapter 7, God’s actions in history remain hidden, even for those who see with the eyes of faith. Faith trusts that God, the Creator of the universe, is also the Lord of the world’s history, but the hand of God in history is hidden; his omnipotence remains concealed and puzzling. Theologian Martin Hengel explains why salvation history operates on different principles in more mysterious ways than we often think about “history”: History itself does not yield any deeper meaning, and for human eyes it does not contain any saving goal. This goal becomes visible only because God, in his sovereign freedom, out of fatherly love for his creatures, has revealed himself in history, i.e., in concrete places in space and time which can be completely objectified. For that reason we have to talk of “salvation history.” However, this event can be seen as an act of God or heard as a form of address only by faith; as a mere historical event within the world it remains ambivalent and open to misinterpretation. It evades any stringent proof of its meaning and can therefore be doubted.6

For Christians, this history of salvation receives its unity and its basis from its focal point and its goal, the person of Jesus Christ: All this is no abstract theology, but a realistic interpretation of the Gospel story in relation to the whole history of Israel. The coming of Christ, His death and resurrection, constitute the fulfillment of that history, not as the last term in a process of development, but as the concentration in one decisive historical moment of the

6. Ibid., 238 (emphases in original).

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

factors determinative of all preceding history, through which, consequently, that history becomes not only meaningful, but in the full sense real.7

Of course, the events of human history, as we see them, run in all sorts of directions and create confusion and competing interpretations of reality. “Salvation history,” as a theological concept, should not be thought of as a continuous line of development or as pointing to an “end” that can be comprehended and explained as a goal that has already been reached and upon which a person could only now look backwards, like the zenith of the Byzantine Empire or the founding of the United States. Rather, salvation history must be viewed as including “breaks,” “detours,” and “interruptions.” We must acknowledge that the fulfillment of biblical prophecy is much more an unexpected fulfillment than an expected one. Hence, the need for a focal point, a “center,” which provides a faith-perspective on the whole of reality. From a Christian perspective then, after the destruction of ancient Israel and Judah and the exile of the latter (after 587 BC), there was a kind of question mark that hung over the promises to Abram and David. Would broken, defeated, and oppressed Israel ever be revived? The NT proclaims the fullest answer to this question, but it is an unexpected answer, far surpassing what had been promised. Who would have expected a crucified and risen Messiah? As we have also already noted, the earliest faith statements about Jesus Christ are found in the letters of Paul, who surely relied on oral traditions that he had received from the other apostles after having been encountered by the risen Christ. One such formulation of teaching is found in 1 Cor. 15.1-8: For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time … Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.8

This foundational confession of faith in Christ, crucified and risen, initially handed down in oral form, was later expanded and modified to form the written Gospels (including the Acts of the Apostles, which is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel). As Paul stated earlier in that same letter: “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor. 1.23). When Paul first came to preach to those Corinthians, he did not come “proclaiming the mystery of God” in “lofty words 7. C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (London: Nisbet, 1938), 145. 8. As was noted in the first chapter, Paul’s use of the expression “the Scriptures” (originally a phrase in Aramaic-Hebrew) refers to the Hebrew Scriptures. The implied reference is surely to Isaiah 53. The description of the Suffering Servant of the LORD in that OT chapter was used by the earliest Christians to interpret the death of Jesus on the cross.

369

370

Fundamental Theology

or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2.1-2). Paul’s preaching (kerygma) was not “with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God” (1 Cor. 2.4-5). In Paul’s theology, God has acted decisively in Jesus to bring about God’s new creation. The proclamation of the gospel is aimed to elicit and strengthen faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. Those who believe the promise of the gospel are brought into this new creation. In his second letter to those Corinthians, Paul wrote: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us” (2 Cor. 5.18-19). The written Gospels are best understood as narrative expansions of this basic, initial proclamation about Jesus. Within the Book of Acts—which is the second part of Luke’s Gospel—one finds credal summaries that could almost be described as “mini-Gospels.” These kerygmatic statements “recite the ways in which God has acted … to change the shape of the entire historical process.”9 One example, Acts 13.16-41, will suffice to show the basic kerygmatic pattern, which also includes a narrative account of salvation history. As portrayed there, the apostle Paul begins his proclamation by referring to the God who chose Abram and the other ancestors, the God who made their descendants, the ancient people of Israel, great in the land of Egypt (vv. 16-17). This God then acted to bring the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt and to lead them for forty years in the wilderness (v. 18). God then brought them into the land that had been promised to Abram, as an inheritance (v. 19). After 450 years, God gave the Israelites judges (v. 20). The OT figure of Samuel was both the last of the judges and the first of the prophets. When the people clamored for a king, God reluctantly gave them one, first Saul, then David (vv. 21-22). Out of the latter’s posterity, God has “brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised” (v. 23); before his coming John the Baptizer “had already proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel” and had served as the forerunner of Jesus, to prepare the people for his coming (vv. 24-25). To the descendants of Abraham, but now also to all those who fear God, the message of salvation has been sent (v. 26). Because some of the people and leaders in Jerusalem did not recognize this Savior or understand the words of the prophets that are read every sabbath, they fulfilled these words by condemning Jesus (v. 27). While Jesus was innocent of the charges leveled against him, Pilate had Jesus killed (v. 28). He was crucified and laid in a tomb (v. 29). “But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and they are now his witnesses to the people. And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their 9. Walter Brueggemann, The Bible Makes Sense (Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s, 1977), 48.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

children, by raising Jesus” (vv. 30-33). After citing three OT passages to support this divine promise (vv. 33-37), Paul ends the sermon in Acts by stating: “Let it be known to you therefore, my brothers, that through this man [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses” (vv. 38-39). This summary of “salvation history” presents the basic faith statements that are found elsewhere in the NT and later in early Christian creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed. As C. H. Dodd and other NT scholars have noted, these statements follow the same basic pattern: What God had promised Abram (Gen. 12.1-3) and David (2 Sam. 7.16) has come to fulfillment in Jesus, “a son of Abraham, a son of David” (Mt. 1.1). Lk. 4.16-21 and many other NT texts indicate that an OT promise has been fulfilled in Christ (however strange that fulfillment may seem to us!). The OT history on which the promise is based is intertwined with the history that led to Christ. While promise and fulfillment constitute an integral event that is reported in both the OT and the NT, God’s new age has begun in Jesus. Ultimately, according to the NT witnesses, Jesus died on the cross to deliver us out of the present old creation. He was buried, and he rose on the third day. That is the basic apostolic claim. Christ is now exalted to the right hand of God, and he will come again to judge and to save the living and the dead. According to Luke, the final act of God is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, an event that follows the exaltation of the risen Christ.10 The written Gospels that now begin the NT can be seen as expanded, literary, narrative proclamations of that same salvation history expressed compactly in Paul’s sermon. But as reflective Christians recognized even fairly early on, the proclamations of first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—each display significant differences as well as some fundamental similarities. How should we account for these similarities and the differences? This is known as the Synoptic Problem. Since the publication of a groundbreaking study by B. H. Streeter (1874–1937), the so-called “four-source” theory of the Synoptic Gospels has gained widespread acceptance for addressing this problem, that is, for explaining the literary relationships among the

10. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: 1936); cf. G. Ernest Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM, 1952), 67–8; and F. F. Bruce, New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 17–21. Rudolf Bultmann, who is generally regarded as the most significant scholar of the NT from the past century, rejected the type of salvation-historical approach that is favored here. Bultmann’s existential theology rejected any kind of continuity between NT Christians and the OT image of Israel as an historical entity, God’s covenantal people. According to Bultmann, the new people of God have no real history, “for it is the community of the end-time, an eschatological phenomenon” (Rudolf Bultmann, History and Eschatology [Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1957], 36). Contrary to Bultmann’s view, the NT texts presuppose and repeatedly emphasize a continuity with the OT in terms of God’s salvific action in history. The theological motif of promise and fulfillment runs as a red thread from the Abrahamic promise through the NT’s promise of the consummation of the new creation.

371

372

Fundamental Theology

first three Gospels.11 According to Streeter, the Gospel of Mark, which is the briefest of the three, was written first, probably around the year 70. The editors/authors of Matthew and Luke then used a version of Mark as their main source. Matthew and Luke thus followed Mark’s basic outline and included in their Gospels much of the same material from Mark, though with slight variations in style and content. In addition, both Matthew and Luke made use of a second source, a supposed source of Jesus’ sayings, which was common to Matthew and Luke but was not used by Mark. Scholars refer to this lost source of Jesus’ sayings as “Q” (from the German word for “source,” Quelle). Finally, Matthew used some special material (identified as “M”) that is found only in his Gospel, while Luke used other special material (identified as “L”) that is found only in his Gospel. But Mark’s outline provided the basic structure to all three Synoptic Gospels. While Matthew and Luke sometimes differ from Mark’s outline, they almost never differ from Mark in the same place and in the same way. When Matthew differs from Mark, Luke does not, and when Luke differs from Mark, Matthew does not. Because Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) drew upon “Q,” their Gospels contain a lot more of Jesus’ teaching than does Mark. It seems likely that, in addition to drawing on this Q source of Jesus’ sayings, they have expanded upon Mark’s Gospel in their respective ways. Scholars today recognize that different communities in the early church retold the basic NT salvation-historical narrative arc in differing ways, partly as a result of the various sources described earlier (cf. Lk. 1.1-4), and some researchers suggest that each community may, originally, have had access to only one Gospel. Mark’s account focuses on Jesus’ way to the cross. According to Mark, Jesus is the Suffering Servant who calls his followers to take up their cross and follow him. Communities that were related to the Gospel according to Matthew told the story of Jesus’ ministry differently from both Mark and Luke, although some elements in Matthew and Luke (the material from “Q”) agree verbatim. Each editor or group of editors arranged the materials in its Gospel to serve its own purposes, and each Gospel contained traditions about the death and resurrection of Jesus that differed from those in the others. It is important to underscore that all of the Gospels, including John, focus special attention on the last week of Jesus’ life, in what is called the “Passion narrative.” None of the Gospels is in any sense a “biography” of Jesus, nor is any strictly an “historical account,” for most of Jesus’ life is not addressed in any of them, and each Gospel has arranged some details in a different order and in differing contexts. What we can say about all four Gospels is this: their individual narrative arcs are aimed toward the final events in Jesus’ life, which are presented as the culmination of salvation history. 11. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924). A minority of scholars align with a different theory, namely, that Matthew was the first to be written, and that Luke used a version of Matthew. Mark then is a truncated summary of Matthew and Luke. For this theory, see W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan, 1964).

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

Sources for the historical Jesus While the canonical Gospels remain the most important sources for historical knowledge of Jesus, it is important to mention that there are significant first-century extra-biblical references to Jesus as an historical figure, and that these references align with the basic elements in the narrative arc about Jesus as described earlier. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, the first-century Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (37–c. 100) makes two references to Jesus. After two lengthy paragraphs on Pontius Pilate, the Roman official responsible for ordering the execution of Jesus, Josephus reports the following: At this time [i.e., during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate] there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive … And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.12

A little later in that same book Josephus refers to “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James.”13 Despite the problem of interpolation that attends to the longer paragraph, these two references provide the best objective historical evidence of the importance of Jesus during his own lifetime. While Jesus did attract some attention among his fellow Palestinian Jews, he seems to have been less important than John the Baptizer, about whom Josephus had more to say, although it is worth underscoring that this Jewish-Roman historian gave more attention to Jesus of Nazareth than he did to twenty other “Jesuses” cited in his works.14 Two additional Roman historians from roughly that same period also mentioned Jesus, but merely as a troublesome agitator from the hinterland of Palestine. Suetonius

12. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.63-4, as quoted in Josephus: The Essential Works, ed. and trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994), 269–70. Contrary to Maier’s judgment, I do not think Josephus, who never became a Christian, would have written the sentence that Maier thinks he wrote (after the ellipsis in the quotation): “Accordingly, [Jesus] was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders.” While Josephus could have acknowledged that Jesus did “wonders,” it seems unlikely that he would have agreed that he was “perhaps the Messiah.” For the problems connected with this paragraph, see Maier, Josephus: The Essential Works, 284–5. For a translation of the standard text that contains Christian interpolations, see Maier, Josephus: The Essential Works, 282–3. Despite scholarly debate about which elements in this standard text are authentic and which are subsequent Christian additions, very few scholars conclude that the entire paragraph is inauthentic. Cf. the judgment of Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 50–1, 298. 13. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.200, as quoted in Josephus: The Essential Works, 281. 14. Ibid., 271–2.

373

374

Fundamental Theology

(69–c. 140) referred to “continuous disturbances” caused by Jews at Rome “at the instigation of Chrestus” (i.e., Christ), which led the emperor Nero to expel them from the imperial city.15 The ancient historian Tacitus (c. 55–c. 117) also referred to these Christian agitators, “the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome.”16 All three of these Roman historians help to pinpoint Jesus in space and time, and all three use the title “Christ” in reference to him. Two of the historians affirm that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The fullest description, that by Josephus, agrees on essential elements in the NT: Jesus was a good man, a “wise man” (a phrase not used by Christians but utilized by Josephus for such OT figures as David and Solomon), the brother of James. He did “wonders,” and, if the sentence is authentic, Jesus’ disciples reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion. While Jesus appears in various noncanonical Gospels and fragments, this material has very limited, if any, value for understanding the historical Jesus. The only exception might be the Gospel of Thomas, which contains sayings that are attributed to Jesus. While some scholars think that at least some of these sayings could have originated with Jesus, and been independently compiled, it seems more likely that even these sayings are based on material from the canonical Gospels and presuppose the latter’s narrative structure. The canonical Gospels remain the primary sources, along with the letters of Paul, for gaining the fullest understanding of the Jesus of history. (Given that we cannot know for certain the complete contents of the hypothetical document “Q,” which scholars think was primarily a source of sayings of Jesus, we cannot simply assume that such a document—or set of documents—only contained sayings of Jesus.) Of course, the four canonical Gospels present their own set of problems for reconstructing an accurate understanding of the historical Jesus. We need to repeat: the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus, and many of their details cannot be accepted at face value as “historical.” This is particularly the case with the Gospel according to John, whose portrait of Jesus is quite different from the basic outline and contents of the Synoptic Gospels. Only about 10 percent of the material in John overlaps in some way with that found in the Synoptics. In many other ways, John’s narrative is radically different from those in the Synoptics, and in certain respects appears to disagree with them. The duration of Jesus’ ministry is longer in John (perhaps as long as five years) than in the Synoptics (a year or less). The course of Jesus’ ministry differs in John (Jesus is repeatedly moving back and forth between Galilee and Judea) compared to the Synoptics (where Jesus remains in the north [region of Galilee] until he travels 15. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, ed. Michael Grant, trans. Robert Graves (London: Penguin, 1989), 202. 16. Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, trans. Michael Grant (London: Penguin, 1989), 365.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

south to Jerusalem at the end of his public activity). The content and style of Jesus’ preaching are different in John from what they are in the Synoptics. For example, in John, Jesus says very little about the kingdom of God, whereas that is his principal message in the Synoptic Gospels. In John, Jesus gives lengthy speeches, which often contain strange metaphors about himself or statements regarding abstract ideas (“eternal life”), whereas in the Synoptics Jesus conceals his identity, often speaks in the third person about “the Son of Man” as if that person were different from himself, and rarely talks directly about himself. In view of these significant differences, scholars recognize that while John’s Gospel may preserve some historical information about Jesus, its portrait of Christ reflects the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus to a much greater degree than do the Synoptics. In the latter, Jesus’ special Son-relationship with God was only implicitly contained in his teaching, whereas in John it is made explicit. The glory of the risen and exalted Christ has now been projected into the earthly life of Jesus. But that “projection” is also evident even in the Synoptics. None of the canonical Gospels is thus interested in the earthly, historical Jesus for the sake of merely telling historical information about him; rather, all four canonical Gospels presuppose the crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Jesus as the Christ, God’s Son, and the Lord, and they thus reflect, from beginning to end, the Easter faith of the early Christian community. That faith is nicely summarized in phrases that are spoken by many Christians in the context of their celebration of the Lord’s Supper: “Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.” Each of the four canonical Gospels, then, is the product of a long period of oral and written transmission within various early Christian settings, and these later contexts and situations have influenced how the material has been organized in each Gospel. In other words, the traditions that eventually got written down in varying ways in the Gospels had undergone a process of transformation and growth during the period of oral transmission. Sayings of Jesus (which he would have spoken in Aramaic, a form of Hebrew) have been handed down and modified in Greek (the original language in which the Gospels have come down to us). Some sayings of Jesus have been accurately remembered, but other sayings attributed to Jesus (or events about him) seem to have arisen within the post-Easter Christian community. The Gospels thus often tell us more about the faith of the early Christian communities that transmitted these traditions than they do about the historical Jesus.

The quest for the historical Jesus During the past three hundred years, scholars have tried to get “behind” the canonical Gospels to find “the real Jesus.” These efforts have been collectively called “the quest

375

376

Fundamental Theology

for the historical Jesus.”17 The aim here was to uncover “Jesus, the man from Nazareth” and to distinguish between him and the dogmatic, christological understandings of him that developed later. Albert Schweitzer’s large work remains the classic analytical survey of the first period of this quest, which runs from the end of the eighteenth century down to Schweitzer’s own studies in the early twentieth century. According to him, the quest began with H. S. Reimarus (1694–1768), who used a combination of historical and literary methods to argue that Jesus was thoroughly oriented to the eschatological expectations of his Jewish contemporaries and should be understood completely in those terms. William Wrede, on the other hand, held that Jesus did not think or act eschatologically at all, and that we can actually know very little about the historical Jesus. Schweitzer’s own position, which is similar to that of Reimarus, was built upon the thesis of Johannes Weiss (1863–1914), who held that the central element in Jesus’ ministry was his proclamation of the imminence of the end of the world and the coming kingdom of God. Schweitzer judged all the scholars he examined by how well they contributed to the liberation of the historical method from supernaturalism, to the recognition that the Synoptics are more valuable as historical sources than John, and to the triumph of the eschatological view of Jesus over against the non-eschatological view. This cluster of issues forms the “problem” of the historical Jesus, as Schweitzer understood it. But the problem of the historical Jesus is more complicated than merely the supposed opposition between “history” (or “reason”) and “faith” (or “dogma”) since nearly all the questers that Schweitzer examined, not merely the rationalist ones, had sought to present the historical Jesus in a form intelligible to their own time. All those who sought to find “the real historical Jesus” ended up creating an historical reconstruction of him that fit an idealized portrait of themselves. Therein lies the main reason for the multiplicity of conflicting portraits of Jesus among those who used the historical method: nearly every quester, attempting to be strictly rational and historical, discovered a Jesus that reflected the quester’s own values and ideals. The undeniable conclusion is that everyone investigates the historical Jesus with a pre-understanding of Jesus that more or less informs their investigation. With the rise of form criticism (which examines the individual genres of tradition in the Synoptic Gospels), Wrede’s position generally held sway. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the founders of the form-critical approach to the Gospels, demonstrated that no “biography” of Jesus is possible on the basis of the Gospel traditions.18 Those 17. Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Geschichte der Leben-Jesu Forschung [From Reimarus to Wrede: The History of Life-of-Jesus Research] (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1906; ET of the 8th edn: The Quest of the Historical Jesus, ed. John Bowden, trans. W. Montgomery, J. R. Coates, John Bowden, and Susan Cupitt [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001]). 18. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, rev. edn, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper & Row, 1963); cf. Martin Dibelius (1883–1947), From Tradition to Gospel, trans. Bertram Lee Woolf (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965).

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

individual units of tradition (often called “pericopes”) circulated independently of one another in the early church, were shaped and even invented by the early Christian community to reflect its Easter faith, and were later edited in different locales and for different purposes by those responsible for putting the Gospels into writing. Such form criticism, which examines the various genres of tradition in the Gospels (and seeks to reconstruct their probable setting and purpose in the life of the church, not in the life of Jesus), led to a deep skepticism about the historical Jesus. Bultmann concluded: “I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist.”19 Despite this negative view, some of Bultmann’s own students initiated a “new quest” for the historical Jesus in the 1950s and 1960s. They took seriously the challenges created by form criticism and redaction criticism (how the individual units of Gospel tradition were later edited by those responsible for the written Gospels), but they sought to establish criteria for distinguishing between “authentic” material that they think goes back to the earthly Jesus and “inauthentic” material that they conclude was produced in the early church.20 Such criteria for establishing the authenticity of Jesus’ words and deeds include multiple attestation (i.e., a saying or deed of Jesus that appears in several independent Gospel sources is likely a genuine word or deed of the historical Jesus), embarrassment (i.e., a saying or deed that tended to embarrass the church or contradict a later viewpoint is likely from the historical Jesus), dissimilarity (i.e., a saying or deed that does not reflect parallels in Judaism or the later concerns of the early church is likely from the historical Jesus), and the criterion of consistency (i.e., a tradition that fits with other traditions that are accepted as authentic is likely a tradition that goes back to the historical Jesus). Unfortunately, despite their general agreement about these criteria, NT scholars who use them continue to disagree among themselves about which specific statements are authentic. While many scholars continue to use such criteria, new investigations into the historical Jesus have been undertaken since the turn of the past century. These works are less skeptical than Wrede and Bultmann with regard to knowledge of the historical Jesus. See, for example, the important writings by the American scholar E. P. Sanders (1937–2022) who worked in this vein. Still other scholars have published new research on the social world of first-century Palestine, the world in which the earthly Jesus 19. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress Lantero (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934), 8. 20. See especially the essay by Ernst Käsemann (1906–98), “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1964), 15–47; and Günther Bornkamm (1905–90), Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).

377

378

Fundamental Theology

lived. By investigating the social environment in which Jesus taught and moved, these investigators hope to gain fresh insights about Jesus himself. In their works, they draw upon a variety of disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, and the history of religions.21 Of course, scholars who use the aforementioned criteria and seek to reconstruct the social world of the historical Jesus still arrive at very different judgments regarding the authenticity of the various Gospel traditions. Moreover, the criteria themselves have been subjected to rigorous criticism.22 For example, if one uses the criterion of dissimilarity quite strictly, one could never arrive at the conclusion that the historical Jesus taught anything consistent with the Judaism of his day, and if one uses it in view of the early church, this same criterion underestimates the early church’s actual connection to the historical Jesus, for example, to memories they had of his words and deeds. Who really was Jesus? Scholars continue to disagree among themselves. Reimarus held that Jesus was a failed revolutionary, who sought to overturn the Roman government and make himself an earthly king. Schweitzer concluded that Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet, who announced the imminent end of the world, but that end did not come as he predicted. For Schweitzer, Jesus’ death changed everything, but not in the way Jesus intended. What Jesus expected as a cataclysmic ending of the world had to become “spiritualized” by his followers after his death, since the kingdom of God did not come as Jesus predicted. The church then had to move beyond Jewish eschatology to develop an already-present, spiritualized kingdom, a de-apocalypticized eschatology. Bultmann concluded that Jesus was both a Jewish rabbi, or teacher, and an eschatological prophet. This was also the view of E. P. Sanders, and it is one that is widely held in the field of NT studies. However, a minority of other scholars have concluded that Jesus was mainly a non-apocalyptic social reformer. This is the view of Marcus Borg (1942–2015) and John Dominic Crossan (b. 1934), who give much more credence to noncanonical sources.23 A similar position is held by many participants in “the Jesus Seminar,” some of whom (e.g., Burton Mack [1931–2022]) view Jesus as a sage or cynic philosopher.24 This non-eschatological, almost non-Jewish view of Jesus, however, has not gained wide acceptance among scholars. As we have already noted, many feminist theologians 21. Delbert Burkett, An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 247. 22. Cf. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.429-31. 23. See, for example, Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994); Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006); and John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991). 24. Burton Mack, Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

and Bible scholars emphasize Jesus’ egalitarian teachings and actions, especially toward women.25 Liberationist theologians also view Jesus in similar ways. While each of these studies into the historical Jesus can help to shed some light on who he was, what he did, what he taught, and what happened to him, the strict use of historical-critical principles tends to minimize or even reject a theological understanding of Jesus that takes seriously the basic faith claims in the apostolic tradition: Christ died, Christ is risen, the exalted Christ is present to his church, and the crucified and risen Christ will come again. Such a faith perspective that is brought to the Gospels leaves open matters that strict practitioners of the historical method consider tightly shut, namely, that God cannot be considered to be acting in history (or at least that God’s actions in history fall outside the scope of what humans call “history”), that the theological and supernatural claims found in the NT cannot pass the criterion of authenticity, or that they simply cannot happen.26 Such historical reconstructions of Jesus may end up bracketing out that which the early church found most central in proclaiming and teaching the good news about Jesus of Nazareth. Martin Kähler (1835–1912) and Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938), magisterial scholars whom Schweitzer essentially disregarded, remind us that the Gospels are not the kind of historical sources that will give us a “life” (much less a “biography”) of the historical Jesus.27 That is not their purpose. Though Kähler would have agreed with Schweitzer’s statement that Christian faith and life do not depend finally on the vagaries of historical scholarship, he would not have agreed with Schweitzer’s own reasons for this statement. For Kähler, the Gospels—from beginning to end—are not merely concerned with Jesus as he was in his historical time, but with Jesus as he is, namely, the real and living, risen and exalted, Christ. The faith of the early Christians was “an important contributing factor and a permeating influence in the formation of the account of Jesus” given in the Gospels.28 In a basic way, the Gospels deliberately “hide” the historical Jesus behind their interpretation of him, which is thoroughly informed by post-Easter faith in the risen Christ. The Gospels then are expansions of the apostolic kerygma into a narrative form whose goal is the creation and sustenance of faith in the Jesus who died and is now risen. 25. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology (New York: Continuum, 1994); Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation (New York: Continuum, 2000). 26. Burkett, An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, 256. 27. Martin Kähler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus (1892); ET: The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, ed. and trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964); and Adolf Schlatter, Schlatters Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament [Schlatter’s Commentary on the New Testament], 10 vols (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Berlin, 1961–4). 28. Paul Althaus, Fact and Faith in the Kerygma of Today, trans. David Cairns (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959), 22.

379

380

Fundamental Theology

Kähler thus distinguished between “Jesus,” the “historical” man of Nazareth, and “Christ,” the “historic” Savior who is proclaimed by the early church. Here the term historical (German: historisch) refers to the bare facts of the past, while the term historic (German: geschichtlich) denotes the biblical Christ who is abidingly significant for Christian faith. But there is a danger in Kähler’s position, too. If taken to its extreme, one could conclude, as Bultmann and others have done, that discovering the “historical” Jesus is an impossible, fruitless task, and that the historical Jesus is merely the presupposition for the early church’s proclamation. According to Bultmann, we cannot go behind that apostolic proclamation to discover the Jesus of history. Moreover, whatever can be discovered about Jesus as an historical figure, at least according to Bultmann, is of no significance for Christian faith. Jesus was merely a Jewish rabbi and/or an apocalyptic prophet who remained entirely in the context of Judaism. For Bultmann, Christianity began with the Easter proclamation of the apostles: The message of Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself … But Christian faith did not exist until there was a Christian kerygma; i.e., a kerygma proclaiming Jesus Christ—specifically Jesus Christ the Crucified and Risen One—to be God’s eschatological act of salvation. He was first so proclaimed in the kerygma of the earliest church, not in the message of the historical Jesus.29

Against this view, Paul Althaus (1888–1966), Joachim Jeremias (1900–79), and others have emphasized the continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Althaus rightly insisted that Christian preaching, even the earliest apostolic kerygma, has a twofold content that forms an inseparable unity: (1) the report of things that have happened—“happened in our human history at a determinative place and time”—and (2) a witness to the significance of these events for our salvation and judgment, which invites a personal, existential decision of faith.30 In Althaus’ view, there is “no concrete continuity in Bultmann’s theology between the historical Jesus who was the subject of his historical work, and the apostolic preaching” about Jesus.31 What is the basis of Christian faith if every kind of historical basis is removed from it? Why trust the message proclaimed about Christ if there is no real historical element to it? Althaus agreed with Günther Bornkamm (1905–90): “Our task, then, is to seek the history in the kerygma of the Gospels, and in this history to seek the kerygma.”32

29. Rudolf Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951–5), 1.3. 30. Althaus, Fact and Faith in the Kerygma of Today, 29. 31. Ibid., 45. 32. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 21 (emphasis in original); cf. Althaus, Fact and Faith in the Kerygma of Today, 65. The challenge is to use historical-critical methods for illuminating the way in which the traditions

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

Jeremias warned that Bultmann’s position runs the risk of surrendering the confession that “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1.14) and “of dissolving ‘salvation history,’ God’s activity in the man Jesus of Nazareth and in his message.”33 To focus exclusively on the apostolic kerygma could lead to docetism, where Christ becomes a mere idea that is divorced from Jesus of Nazareth.34 Does the historical Jesus have nothing to teach the post-apostolic church? For Jeremias, we must go back to the historical Jesus and to his message. The origin of Christianity lies with Jesus, who was “crucified under Pontius Pilate.” That origin lies also with Jesus’ message, not with the later resurrection appearances of the risen Christ. We cannot understand the message of the apostles unless we understand the message of Jesus.35 More recently, the Anglican clergyman and NT scholar N. T. Wright (b. 1948) has written several books on Jesus and early Christianity in which he also underscores the historical continuity between Jesus of Nazareth and the apostolic kerygma.36 For Wright, the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus largely align (the discrepancies between individual accounts can be explained, e.g., Jesus spoke the same stories more than once in differing settings). These biblical accounts are largely historically accurate. Wright thus finds a lot of historical value in the first three Gospels (and to some extent in the fourth) that many other scholars attribute to the creative work of the early church and its proclamation about the risen Christ. Wright’s overall view of Jesus is close to that of E. P. Sanders: Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who announced the coming kingdom of God, which was already dawning in and through the ministry of Jesus. In the course of his ministry, Jesus redefined the problem of the Jewish exile and provided its solution: the problem was not the Roman Empire but Jewish nationalism and the desire to be free of foreign oppression through the use of political violence.

about the historical Jesus were taken into the early church’s proclamation and teaching about him. Cf. the basic insights about historical investigation and theological understanding of Jesus by Ferdinand Hahn, Historical Investigation and New Testament Faith, ed. Edgar Krentz, trans. Robert Maddox (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Peter Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); and the classic work by Dodd, History and the Gospel, esp. 77–145. 33. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus and the Message of the New Testament, ed. K. C. Hanson, trans. Norman Perrin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 6. 34. Docetism (from a Greek word that means “to seem like” or “to appear like”) held that Jesus only “seemed” to be human. 35. This view has also been defended by Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), whose work has shaped my summary here. 36. See esp. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, 4 vols (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992– 2013). For a briefer account, see N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters (New York: HarperCollins, 2011).

381

382

Fundamental Theology

In the process, the Jews had given up their divinely given mission to call Gentiles to worship the one true God. Jesus thus called people to repentance, and his words and actions drew attention to himself as the focal point of that in-breaking kingdom, one that welcomed both Jew and Gentile alike. To facilitate that inclusivity, Jesus redefined the Mosaic law to emphasize God’s mercy, and he criticized the law’s ceremonial and sacrificial elements. It is the latter action, especially his critique of temple sacrifices, that brought Jesus into conflict with the Jerusalem authorities, leading to his arrest and execution. The resurrection of Jesus—which Wright holds to be an historical event (radically unlike any other)— vindicated the ministry and death of Jesus the Messiah and exalted him to the place of divine honor. In view of Wright’s criticism of the ideological assumptions that govern how historical criticism is used by scholars, we can also point to a much earlier scholar, Johannes von Hofmann. He argued that historical criticism, when used according to a rigid set of principles, does not allow the interpreter of the church’s Scriptures to be open to the present experience of faith in the living, risen Christ, as confessed by the apostles, as taught and proclaimed in the church’s liturgy, as taught by church leaders in their missionary outreach, and as later clarified in the dogmatic history of the church. In this regard, the canonical Gospels share Peter’s and Paul’s kerygmatic and instructional goals and have as their presupposition an experience that goes beyond the bounds of the principles of historical criticism. This experience is itself the precondition for understanding the continuity between Jesus’ preaching and teaching about the kingdom, the apostles’ preaching and teaching about Jesus, Christian worship (including early credal statements, as well as the administration of baptism and the Eucharist), and the development of christological dogma in the history of the church. The living Jesus of the kerygma, whose earthly teachings were remembered and treasured (if also transformed, at least in part), always escapes the grasp of the person who would attempt to understand Jesus purely historically or purely literarily. In our day it seems that the emphasis has shifted toward the literary end of the spectrum, where “literature” tends to get identified with imaginative fiction, and thus there is the need to be reminded that the Gospels are witnesses to events that the earliest disciples of Jesus “saw and heard” (Acts 4.20). While everything in the Gospels was shaped by the disciples’ experience of the resurrection, not everything in the texts is the result of that experience. Their experience of the risen Christ did not do away with their memories of Jesus prior to his crucifixion, as if suddenly the apostles had amnesia about what Jesus had taught and done during his earthly ministry. It is a huge stretch to conclude that their memories were faulty or that their motives for speaking and acting were deceptive, especially when one considers the risks that the apostles and other disciples took for such speaking and acting.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

We will return to the basic issue of God’s action in history when we examine the claims about Jesus’ miracles and the apostolic witness to his resurrection. We have already drawn attention to the importance of theological presuppositions in the study of the Bible in the previous chapter, especially in relation to the use of historical-critical methods in the study of the Scriptures. E. P. Sanders was right to stress that, even if we emphasize the real life and presence of Jesus of Nazareth, much about the historical Jesus will remain a mystery.37 For our purposes, we need only to provide the briefest of sketches of the basic outline of his public life. Jesus was born around the year 6 BC. The name of his mother Mary and the name and occupation (woodworker) of his father Joseph have been handed down in what can be taken as very reliable tradition, as have the name of his hometown (Nazareth), his language (Aramaic), and the religious and political circumstances of his life’s setting. We know nothing of his life until he began his public ministry when he was “about thirty years old” (Lk. 3.23). According to Luke’s account, this activity began during the “fifteenth year” of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was procurator (administrator or governor) of Judea and Herod Antipas was the ruler (a Roman puppet “king”) of Galilee.38 While we cannot be certain of the calendar that Luke relied upon, it is likely that Jesus began his public activity around the year 26. Following his baptism by John the Baptizer, Jesus called twelve ordinary people to follow him (“the Twelve,” clearly a symbol for the twelve tribes of ancient Israel). But many other ordinary individuals were also called to follow him and became his disciples, including several women who are named in the Gospels. Within the context of Jewish apocalyptic, Jesus proclaimed the coming of God’s kingdom, but there was a big difference between his message and that of Jewish apocalyptic: crucial for Jesus was the nearness of the kingdom, that God’s reign was beginning now. In view of the imminent arrival of that kingdom, Jesus called people to turn their lives around. He taught people about the kingdom, and invited them to enter it. In connection with his proclamation of the kingdom, he announced the coming of the apocalyptic Son of Man (a figure about whom he tended to speak as if that person was someone other than himself). Jesus healed people of their diseases. He “cast out demons.” He brought peace and wholeness to individuals. As a result of his words and deeds, however, he came into conflict with other Jewish teachers and leaders. The words and actions he undertook in the vicinity of the Jerusalem temple only intensified that opposition. He was soon betrayed by one of his own twelve closest disciples (Judas Iscariot) and then arrested by a few Jewish leaders, who tried him in relative secret. They in turn handed him over to the regional 37. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 280. 38. Tiberius was emperor between

AD

14 and

AD

37. Pilate governed Palestine for most of that time (AD

26–36). Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, ruled between 4 BC and AD 39.

383

384

Fundamental Theology

Roman official, Pontius Pilate, who had him crucified as an enemy of the empire. All this likely took place in the year 30.39 After Jesus’ death, his followers experienced what they said was his “resurrection from the dead.” They claimed that he appeared to them a short time after he had died. While he was the same Jesus they had known, he was also quite different. (Saul of Tarsus [also called “Paul of Tarsus”], who had not been an eyewitness to the words and deeds of Jesus, and had been an opponent of Jesus’ early followers, also claimed to have received a “revelation” of the risen Jesus, probably in the year 33 or 34.) Jesus’ followers now acclaimed him to be the Son of Man whom he had proclaimed in connection with the coming kingdom of God. They worshiped and honored him with other titles as well, such as the Christ, the Son of God, and the Lord. Jesus was now experienced by his followers as a transformed person who had actually died but was living in a new mode of being. They expected him to come again—soon.

The actions and teaching of Jesus According to the earliest canonical Gospel (Mark), Jesus began his public ministry by being baptized by John the Baptizer. Jesus thus made himself one with those who repented in response to John’s message and action about the coming divine judgment. Jesus thus accepted John’s message and placed himself under it. According to the Synoptics, the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism, and a voice from heaven stated of him, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased” (Mk 1.11), words that echo the divine promise that was spoken to the prophetic Servant of the LORD (Isa. 41.8) and to the Davidic king (Ps. 2). What happened to Jesus in his baptism, according to the Gospel reports, went well beyond John’s message and baptism. Nevertheless, Jesus never broke from John. On the contrary, Jesus had only the highest praise for John (cf. Mk 11.30-33; par. Lk. 7.18-35). Only in retrospect could the subsequent Christian tradition make a sharp distinction between John and Jesus. Two of the Gospels firmly declare: “The law and the prophets were in effect until and including John; since then the good news of the kingdom is proclaimed” (Lk. 16.16 [paraphrase]; cf. Mt. 11.12). After a period of seclusion (which the Synoptics describe as a time of trial and prayer), Jesus began to wander the countryside and villages near his home and to proclaim the coming kingdom of God. While the message of Jesus was similar to John’s (e.g., he, too, called for repentance on the part of all people), it was also different. Whereas John had proclaimed (only?) the nearness of God’s coming wrath, Jesus proclaimed the inbreaking of God’s reign as “good news,” and he pointed toward 39. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 249.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

the coming Son of Man as the bringer of salvation. Whereas John’s message led to an awareness of God’s judgment and of personal guilt, the message of Jesus brought about joy and celebration. Jesus showed compassion and mercy for the Godforsaken. He brought healing to desperate, suffering people in a way that John never did. He brought people into loving communion with God. Their repentance led to heavenly joy (Lk. 15). While Jesus, like John, proclaimed the imminent judgment of God, which no one could evade, he announced salvation to those caught in their sins and failures, who were burdened by their guilt and alienation from God’s love. Regardless of their past, Jesus opened a new future for such sinners. He forgave them their sins. He told them that God was their loving heavenly Father, that they could trust God to care for them, and to pray to him as their Father. Only upon those who refused to accept Jesus’ message, who refrained from repenting, who took offense at him, did his words of judgment remain (cf. Mt. 11.23-24; Lk. 10.12). Unlike John, who stayed in one place out by the Jordan River, Jesus was constantly on the move. He never stayed in one place too long, it seems. He bypassed the large cities in his region and the places where mostly Gentiles (non-Jews) lived, and journeyed “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 15.24). While he was particularly concerned for “sinners” and the sick (“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” [Mk 2.17]), he cared for all types of individuals: the wealthy and the poor, those well-educated and the less learned, people who were healthy and those who suffered from various maladies, Pharisees and tax collectors, prostitutes and upstanding citizens. Wherever he went, he seemed most concerned about giving such people a fresh start. He called out self-righteousness and pride, but he dealt gently and mercifully with those who were caught in their sins and failures. He was the friend of sinners, and even ate with them (thus making himself one with them, an action he had already undertaken when he was baptized by John). On one occasion, Jesus even used the positive example of a Samaritan (a member of a religious group that his people despised) to teach about what it means “to be a neighbor” to others (Lk. 10.29-37). Wherever Jesus went, he proclaimed the kingdom of God, and taught about it. He did so using a variety of speech forms: terse sayings or maxims (aphorisms), beatitudes (blessings), promises, invitations, longer sayings of wisdom or of prophecy, commands, similitudes, parables of differing lengths (some approaching the genre of allegory), and narrated stories that report on conversations he had with various individuals and groups. In each of these ways, Jesus was not so much interested in describing the kingdom of God as he was with announcing it and inviting people to enter into it and to live their lives in light of it. The kingdom or reign of God is everything, the most precious thing, in view of which everything else can be left behind. “The kingdom of heaven

385

386

Fundamental Theology

[= the Jewish euphemism for ‘kingdom of God,’ used out of reverence for the term God] is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Mt. 13.44). While the kingdom of God starts out small, like a mustard seed, “yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade” (Mk 4.31-32). In some contexts, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom or reign of God as present now (“The kingdom of God has come near” [Mk 1.15]), while in other contexts that reign is still to come in the future (“But about that day or hour, no one knows” [Mk 13.32]). In some settings, the kingdom is present now in Jesus himself, who is fulfilling what the OT prophets promised (cf. Lk. 4.16-21), while in other settings Jesus spoke of it as still in the future, as he implied, for example, in the prayer he taught his disciples (the “Lord’s Prayer”): “Your kingdom come” (Mt. 6.10; Lk. 11.2b). Jesus emphasized the futurity of the kingdom when he promised a future blessing to those who are hungry, mourning, hated, and persecuted “on account of the Son of Man” (Lk. 6.20-23; cf. Mt. 5.1-12). The hungry will be fed, those who mourn will laugh, and those who are hated and persecuted will be rewarded. (Conversely, the rich have already received their consolation, the satiated will hunger, those laughing will mourn, the well-liked will be as false prophets [Lk. 6.24-26].) The community that the kingdom of God will create is described as a wedding feast (Mt. 22.2-14), an image of joy, celebration, and satisfaction that recurs in the context of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples (Mk 14.25). When the kingdom comes, all that separates humans from God—sin, death, mourning, other forms of misery—will be eliminated. When the kingdom comes, the pure in heart will see God (Mt. 5.8), something that is not possible in the present age. “The kingdom of God will bring life, joy, and peace to humankind in a comprehensive and definitive way … Not damnation but salvation, not death but life is the real subject of his message.”40 Jesus emphasized the present reality of the kingdom in other contexts. For example, he promised that the kingdom belongs now to the poor (Lk. 6.20b). Jesus forgave people their sins, thus removing the barrier that separated them from God. He was “the friend of tax collectors and sinners.” Not surprisingly, his detractors grumbled at this offensive behavior: “This fellow welcomes sinners and even eats with them” (Lk. 15.2). Many of his parables (e.g., the lost sheep, the lost coin, and especially the lost son [Lk. 15]) stress God’s love and mercy for sinners, and God’s desire to restore them to communion with himself. The parables all teach: this is what the kingdom of God is like. Jesus’ eating with sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and other outcasts was also a sign of God’s kingdom of love and mercy in the present. We can thus say, whenever Jesus forgave a sinner and restored that one to God, there was

40. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, in ESW, 2/1.473.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

a kind of wedding reception and party: “The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they?” (Mt. 9.15). The kingdom also became present when Jesus healed people of their various diseases of body, mind, and spirit. While the words of Jesus already created what they said, his actions also brought the kingdom into people’s lives. When Jesus forgave people their sins, he brought about a kind of healing for them. They were restored to health and well-being. Jesus cared for people. He came among them as a servant. He embraced those who were shunned as God’s enemies. To those who were afflicted with a bodily ailment, he brought wholeness, and these “mighty deeds” of healing and exorcism were further signs that the kingdom of God was active among the people. “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come among you” (Lk. 11.20). Just about wherever Jesus went, people were healed. “Jesus went throughout Galilee … proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing every disease and every sickness among the people” (Mt. 4.23). About one-fifth of the canonical Gospels is given over to this healing aspect of the coming kingdom. There are some forty-one separate episodes of Jesus healing people, and ten of these reports state that “great multitudes” were healed. According to these accounts, Jesus cured the paralyzed and the blind, he healed the sick (such as lepers and those with fevers), and he cast out demons. “The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have salvation proclaimed to them” (Mt. 11.5; cf. Lk. 7.22). Yes, it is even said that Jesus restored the dead to life (Mk 5.35-43) and that he had power and authority over the nonhuman forces of nature (cf. Mk 4.35-41). The accounts about the healings of the centurion’s servant (Mt. 8.5-13; Lk. 7.1-10) and the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mk 7.24-30) indicate that Jesus did not restrict his salvific action to Jews. So there appears to be a paradox here: the kingdom of God is now, present in and through the words and actions of Jesus, in the forgiveness and healing he gives, and in the meals he shared with others, and yet that kingdom is still to come; it is still something for which to pray. In either case, the message is directed to all, to the “righteous” and to the “sinner,” to the “pious” and to the “outcast” (cf. Mt. 5.3-12; Lk. 6.20-23). All are called to repent (lit., “to change their way of thinking”; to change their way of life [Mk 1.15]), to live joyfully in view of the present/coming kingdom (Mt. 6.16), indeed, to enter into the kingdom (i.e., the sphere where God’s love and mercy have sway), to stand firm in view of opposition to the coming kingdom, and to remain faithful (Lk. 12.35-48). So the phrase “kingdom of God” (Greek: “basileia tou theou”), as Jesus used it, refers both to God’s act of reigning through his love for sinners and to the divine realm into which sinners are brought into communion with God and with one another. The futurity of the kingdom that Jesus will bring is implied in the prayer that the dying thief on the cross said to the dying Jesus, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Lk. 23.42). The simultaneous

387

388

Fundamental Theology

nowness and the futurity of the kingdom are mixed in Jesus’ reported reply, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk. 23.43). Jesus’ proclamation of God’s coming kingdom is thus about something different from God’s preserving and governing action as the Creator of all; it is about God’s coming to save sinners who have fallen into divine judgment, to be reconciled with them, and to give them the fullness of life. Jesus’ preaching and teaching about the coming kingdom is about the establishment of a new communion between God and human beings, one that is marked by divine forgiveness, healing, and love. Jesus’ parables emphasize that God alone brings the kingdom, not humans. The latter cannot know or calculate when it will come. They are told simply to pray for its coming: “Our Father … your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt. 6.910; cf. Lk. 11.2-4). The kingdom of God is still hidden, still small as a mustard seed, still awaiting the revelation of its greatness. But its inbreaking that is hidden in the words and actions of Jesus, but especially in his resurrection and exaltation, will eventually give way to its consummation. When that kingdom finally comes—suddenly—it will be radically different from all earthly kingdoms, dominions, and powers. The “nearness” of the kingdom of God is thus determined both by its future revelation and by its inbreaking presence in Jesus. It is therefore not simply a temporal concept but the urgent pressing forward of the fulfillment of God’s reign that is overcoming time. The unpredictability and the nearness of the future do not contradict each other, even if one recognizes each of the two without reservation and refuses to limit the unpredictability of the end by subordinating it to the temporal nearness. If one holds fast, at the same time, to the ignorance (which humans cannot overcome) about the temporal moment of the fulfillment and to Jesus’ present promise of this future event, then the expectation of the nearness of this event arises as an essential aspect of hastening toward this future. Precisely because the kingdom was announced by Jesus as a sudden, unpredictable event, expecting its nearness was the consistent attitude of those who accepted this message.41

Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom lacked the Jewish-nationalistic elements that were maintained by some Jewish groups in that period, for example, the Pharisees and the Zealots (the latter advocating overt revolt against Roman rule). The kingdom Jesus proclaimed is universal, open to all. Moreover, Jesus did not criticize or move against the political powers of his day. He did not speak against the Roman Empire, nor did he oppose the theocracy of the Jewish high priest and the Jewish Council (the Sanhedrin). Unlike the Zealots and other political liberation movements, he did not employ or condone political violence. The kingdom he announced was not a reality that could be actualized through fighting in the physical sense. (Jesus’ action of overturning the money-changing tables in the temple area [Lk. 19.45-46 and par.] is best understood as a symbolic protest against the kind of commercialized worship 41. Ibid., 2/1.480 (emphasis in original).

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

that was then taking place at the temple, perhaps in anticipation of the kingdom that Jesus was announcing, which would no longer require the temple’s sacrificial system. He never used physical force against individuals, according to the Gospel accounts.) Jesus also differed from the Pharisees (“the separated ones”) and others of that period who devoted themselves to the strict obedience of the Mosaic law. Jesus did not separate himself from sinners, but freely spoke with them, healed them, forgave them, ate with them. He did not seek to form his disciples into a “holy remnant,” nor did he set himself up as an earthly king in the line of David. When people tried to make him into such a king, he withdrew from them (Jn 6.15). Since the reports about the “mighty deeds” of Jesus might raise a few eyebrows among the scientifically minded, we should note the following: (1) All of the miracle stories had a long period of oral transmission behind them before they were written down into the context of the Gospel narratives. Some elements in the miracle stories, as they have come down to us, echo earlier miracle stories from the OT and Hellenistic Judaism and make use of their motifs. So we must recognize that there likely has been some theological embellishment of some of the miracle reports. Moreover, the parallel accounts of the same miraculous event in the Gospels often indicates that an embellishment has taken place in the Gospel traditioning process (cf. Mk 1.34 with Mt. 8.16). We must also acknowledge the possibility that some of the miracle stories (perhaps the nature miracles?) may entail a projection of the post-Easter faith of the disciples back into the earthly life of Jesus. (2) All of the canonical Gospels report that Jesus healed people and performed exorcisms. The Synoptic Gospels often refer to these actions as “mighty deeds.” John calls them “signs.” Such deeds/signs were done for people in dire straits, who were full of misery, and at their wits’ end. Jesus required nothing from those he healed, save trust in his authority/power to do so. He required no advance preparation, no payment, no prior confession of sin. Some he healed were near at hand, while others were far away. Nor did Jesus use secret incantations or magic formulas. He healed simply by his powerful, creative word. We need not be obsessed with “the demonic,” nor join those who caricature and so facilely dismiss it as outmoded superstition, to recognize that our world is full of anti-godly powers and principalities that can overtake individuals, movements, and even entire nations, and that cause them to act against the will of God in bizarre ways.42 (3) The Gospels report that amazement, awe, and wonder arose among those who witnessed the mighty deeds of Jesus, but these deeds were never presented for their own sake. Jesus did not do these mighty deeds to prove something about himself, or to legitimize his message. In every instance, the focus was on the caring action 42. See esp. Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Walter Wink, Unmasking the Powers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); and M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie, 2nd edn (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998).

389

390

Fundamental Theology

of Jesus to help a person in terrible need. That focus away from himself fits with the earliest traditions of Jesus’ preaching and teaching: he didn’t teach directly about himself. He pointed away from himself. (In the Gospel of John, Jesus does talk about himself, but these sayings are more strongly shaped by the post-Easter church and are not reflected in the earliest traditions, which are found in the Synoptics.) It is also worth noting that Jesus never used his power for destruction, only for healing (cf. Lk. 9.55). These actions were, however, important signs of the coming reign of God that Jesus proclaimed. His word and his deeds mutually interpreted each other. Ultimately, they pointed toward the salvation that Jesus promised, the complete end of the miseries of this old world, and the complete arrival of the new creation that began with his appearing. (4) Despite pointing away from himself, Jesus attracted large crowds wherever he went. A main reason for the multitudes was the miraculous healing that Jesus provided. Even Jesus’ opponents acknowledged that Jesus was healing people, but they accused him of being able to do so because he was in league with the devil. As N. T. Wright and others have argued, why would Jesus’ own followers have invented such stories? “People don’t accuse you of being in league with the devil,” Wright observes, “unless you are doing pretty remarkable things.”43 (5) What Jesus brought about was startlingly new, strange, beyond expectation. Again, Jesus’ words interpreted his actions, and vice versa. People were radically changed for the better by Jesus. Were these changes the result of wishful thinking? Delusions? Illusions? Or was the power of God the Creator present through the words and actions of Jesus? Why not take seriously Jesus’ own explanation for what was happening? Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a God who is able and willing to act in ways that go beyond natural laws or the regularities we detect in nature? The theist will insist that if there is a God, who is the Creator and Sustainer of the laws of nature, then God is free to suspend them on occasion for God’s own purposes. True, we may be mistaken. But that is “a knife that cuts both ways—we may be mistaken in believing that an event is not a divine intervention when it really is, as well as the other way around.”44 43. Wright, Simply Jesus, 58. Christian missionaries in non-Western settings, even those missionaries who do not come from a Pentecostal background, often report about miraculous healings, visions, exorcisms, and other miracles that have brought people to faith in Jesus Christ. They note that before such individuals changed their allegiance to Jesus, they had to be convinced that his power was greater than the gods and spirits they had been worshiping. Otherwise, these people knew they would face supernatural retribution from the spirits they had abandoned. In south India, for example, Lutheran missionary Herbert Hoefer encountered many “nonbaptized believers in Christ” who had come to faith through such direct encounters with Jesus who had shown his personal attention and power to them. See Herbert Hoefer, Churchless Christianity, 2nd edn (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2001). 44. Swinburne, Is There a God?, 106.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

(6) If one assumes that the Logos through which God created the entire universe became incarnate in Jesus, then the Gospel reports about Jesus’ mighty deeds make sense. If one assumes that “the universe” is all that is real, and “nature” is “everything,” then the reports about Jesus’ mighty deeds are indeed fantastic, perhaps unbelievable. But might it be the case that the words and actions of Jesus call into question our own worldview, our own allegiances, our own narrow thinking about what is “real” and “possible,” and our own desires not to let God be God? While the natural sciences rightly seek to uncover and accurately understand whatever regularities occur in nature (which some might hold to be a kind of miracle itself!), they will have difficulty making sense of whatever anomalies might take place outside of those regularities. While David Hume was skeptical about the possibility of miracles, those who are open to their possibility, for the reasons stated earlier, will not necessarily dismiss all reports about them.45 There are many individuals, deemed quite reliable, who report seemingly miraculous occurrences that have a higher probability of having taken place than of not having occurred.46 All such claims call for sober, critical judgment regarding the historical evidence, taking into account every possible “natural” explanation, evaluating the intrinsic probability of the event, while leaving open the possibility of special divine action.47 That procedure should also be followed when evaluating the reports about the mighty deeds of Jesus. Of course, no matter how convincing a miracle report may seem to some, others who are absolutely committed to denying it will resolutely do whatever they can to explain it away. As N. T. Wright rightly observes: Skepticism is no more “neutral” or “objective” than faith. It has thrived in the postEnlightenment world, which didn’t want God (or, in many cases, anyone else either) to

45. For critiques of Hume’s argument against miracles, see Joseph Houston, Reported Miracles: A Critique of Hume (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), esp. 121–207; David Johnson, Hume, Holism, and Miracles (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); and John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 46. Des Hickey and Gus Smith, Miracle (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978); and Jacalyn Duffin, Medical Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 47. By admitting the reality of God, we have no security against the possibility of miracles. But C. S. Lewis’s further statement is also worth quoting: Theology says to you in effect, “Admit God and with Him the risk of a few miracles, and I in return will ratify your faith in uniformity as regards the overwhelming majority of events.” The philosophy which forbids you to make uniformity absolute is also the philosophy which offers you solid grounds for believing it to be general, to be almost absolute. The Being who threatens Nature’s claim to omnipotence confirms her in her lawful occasions … Theology offers you a working arrangement, which leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers. (C. S. Lewis, Miracles [New York: Macmillan, 1947], 128)

391

392

Fundamental Theology

be king. Saying this doesn’t, of course, prove anything in itself. It just suggests that we keep an open mind and recognize that skepticism too comes with its own agenda. We should be prepared to follow where the story leads and see if these initially surprising bits of it make sense with the rest.48

Opposition to Jesus, the death of Jesus, and his resurrection According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus often taught as a rabbi and scholar of the Jewish law, although he did not appeal to the authority of the Jewish fathers in his teaching, nor did he follow the formal mannerisms of a typical Jewish teacher of the law. Like other rabbis of his time and later, he could summarize the entire law in a few brief words. In the Gospel of Mark he says (drawing plainly on the OT): “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength … [and] you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these” (Mk 12.29-31). At no point in his ministry or teaching did Jesus seek to abolish the Hebrew Scriptures, the law and the prophets, or to replace them with his own message. And yet, his teaching was frequently understood by some to be critical of the law. While his words and deeds were met with great acclaim in the countryside, especially among the poor, “sinners,” and outcasts, other scholars of the law opposed him. Yes, he often taught what was prescribed in the law of Moses, and he told people to do what the law required (cf. Mk 1.44), but on other occasions he taught as if he were above the law. While he was often a guest in the house of a Pharisee (Lk. 8.36, 9.37, 14.1), elsewhere he was criticized by members of that same conservative Jewish group and by other scholars of the Jewish law (“scribes,” “lawyers”). As he moved about from place to place, his words and actions led many to conclude he was a prophet, but others judged him to be a false one. Both popularity and enmity were plainly present throughout Jesus’ public activity. Why did some people oppose him, even fanatically so? The short answer to that question is that Jesus taught in such a way that he came into conflict not only with certain legal traditions that had developed among the scribes and the Pharisees of that time but also with the clear teaching of Moses. For example, Jesus subordinated strict observance of the sabbath law to higher concerns, such as the healing of the sick (Mk 3.1-6; Lk. 13.10-17; et passim) and feeding the hungry (Mk 2.23-28). While Jesus’ healing of people on the sabbath was controversial—because the Jews of that

48. Wright, Simply Jesus, 59.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

time debated whether such life-saving work was permitted on that sacred day— no first-century rabbi would have said, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath” (Mk 2.27). Moreover, Jesus criticized the commandments for ritual purity, including the dietary prescriptions in the law. He essentially declared all foods clean, contrary to what Moses had legislated, when he said: “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? … It is what comes out of a person that defiles” (Mk 7.18-20).49 Jesus also criticized Moses’ teaching about divorce. Whereas the latter had permitted divorce under certain conditions (Deut. 24), Jesus forbade it (Mk 10.2-12).50 Finally, we may note how Jesus cited a command or teaching from Moses but then said, “But I say to you” (cf. Mt. 5.21-48). “You have heard that it was said … ‘You shall not murder’ … but I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment” (Mt. 5.21-22). “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt. 5.27-28). “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt. 5.43-44). Jesus thus radicalized the law in a way that went beyond what Moses had taught. Sin, he proclaimed, is more than a misdeed; it is a matter of the heart (anger = sin; lust = sin). By teaching in these ways, Jesus challenged the authority of Moses, and for many people, especially religious officials, no one was above the authority of Moses—except the LORD. Jesus’ freedom over against Moses is remarkable, and it created a scandal among the Jewish scholars and leaders of his day. Jesus also acted in ways that put him, in the minds of his detractors, on the same level as God. For example, when Jesus forgave the sins of a prostitute, those at the house where this happened murmured among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” (Lk. 7.49). This is an echo from an earlier incident in that same Gospel, when Jewish legal scholars and Pharisees began to question, “Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Lk. 5.21; cf. Mk 2.7). The woman who was forgiven is commended for her “faith” in the forgiveness offered by Jesus, while the others are offended by the words that Jesus spoke to her. While this 49. The Gospel of Matthew omits this verse, while Luke omits the whole story. Those responsible for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke must have found Jesus’ statement about food problematic. For an insightful study of ritual impurity in first-century Judaism, see Matthew Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2020). It is unfortunate that Thiessen relegates his analysis of Mk 7.19 to an appendix and that he misunderstands the force of Jesus’ statement here to refer only to the washing of hands, when clearly Jesus was declaring “all foods clean.” 50. The Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 19.3-12) has weakened the force of the original teaching of Jesus (cf. Mk 10.11-12; and Lk. 16.18).

393

394

Fundamental Theology

forgiven sinner left Jesus whole and at peace, the scribes and Pharisees who witnessed Jesus forgive her were troubled and offended by the authority his forgiveness implied. In this connection, we need to underscore N. T. Wright’s point about the forgiveness Jesus gave. Normally, God forgave people at the temple and through the sacrifices that were offered there. But Jesus forgave people their sins apart from the temple. In a basic way, Jesus was replacing the temple with his own actions.51 But opposition to Jesus was not limited to the legal scribes and other Jewish scholars who interrogated him, tested him, and criticized him. The local political leader in Galilee also found cause to try to get rid of him. According to one report, Herod Antipas—the son of Herod the Great and “the king of the Jews” whom the Roman officials recognized and used—thought that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptizer, whom Herod had killed, and so he wanted to put him to death, presumably again (Mt. 14.1-13). Some sympathetic Pharisees came to Jesus to warn him: “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you” (Lk. 13.31). Jesus replied, “Go and tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work. Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem” (Lk. 13.32-33). Jesus’ decision to go to Jerusalem was the great turning-point of his life (cf. his Passion predictions, Mk 8.31, 9.31, 10.33-34). Jesus went there to announce the coming kingdom of God, which Jesus likely would have known in advance would lead to his suffering and death. The clear emphasis of the Synoptic Gospels is that Jesus went to Jerusalem to die (Lk. 13.33). The great “hinge” in the Gospel of Mark is the first passion prediction, following Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah: “Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He said all this quite openly” (Mk 8.31-32). We need not go into the complicated, often conflicting, details about the last period of Jesus’ public activity, namely, his journey to Jerusalem and the week he spent there prior to his death. The last week of Jesus’ life, in particular, was of such central importance to all four of the Gospel writers (following the basic tradition that is given in 1 Cor. 15.1-8), that they devote several culminating chapters just to it. All the way through these basic narratives we find details and actions of Jesus that are reported as fulfillments of OT prophecies, especially regarding the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, but passages from the other biblical prophets and the Psalms are also used to provide a theological meaning of the events. While humans act against Jesus, God is also depicted as acting through these very human agents. From a theological perspective, these individuals who act against Jesus become the unwitting instruments of God’s central act of salvation through Jesus’ suffering and death and resurrection. There is 51. Cf. Wright, Simply Jesus, 79–80, 105.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

a kind of divine necessity that accompanies all these culminating events as they are recorded in the Gospels. The risen Christ says to the two disciples on the road to the town of Emmaus, outside of Jerusalem: “Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (Lk. 24.26). “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures” (Lk. 24.27). The many individual differences and discrepancies between the different Gospel accounts of Jesus’ last week, his crucifixion, and his resurrection should give us pause with regard to our judgments regarding the historical value of each detail in the various Gospel narratives. For our purposes, we need only give a brief outline of the basic course of events that likely happened during that final week, based on the final five chapters in Mark (cf. Lk. 19.28–24.53; Mt. 21–28). Jesus came to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, the annual meal of remembrance of God’s great liberation of the ancient Israelites from their Egyptian captivity. Jesus entered the royal city by being acclaimed by a large crowd: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!” Clearly, these words expressed the hope that people had in the promise of 2 Sam. 7.16, that the Davidic kingdom would revive, and the messianic expectations that were strong at that time. The motifs in the Synoptic narratives of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem are royal in nature. For example, his procession from the Mount of Olives to the temple symbolized the image of the king that is portrayed in Zech. 9.9: “Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Upon entering the city, Jesus went directly to the temple, understood as “the place where heaven and earth meet, the building in which God and his people come together.”52 While the so-called “cleansing of the temple” (i.e., Jesus driving the money changers and merchants of sacrificial animals from the temple court) contains no specifically royal/messianic motif, it does relate to the messianic hope of the new king’s purification of the temple worship. There is the allusion to the statement in Zechariah: “On that day there shall no longer be any merchant in the house of the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 14.21). “Just as the task of temple building was specifically royal, so in classical biblical tradition, as in Mesopotamia, the tasks of establishing, maintaining, and restoring the cult [worship] were reserved for the king. As symbolic act, then, the cleansing belonged to the same royal or messianic thematic as the entry. Entry and cleansing together signaled the arrival of the time of fulfillment.”53 Jesus’ action of purifying the temple was not merely a symbolic act, for it also announced God’s judgment against the entire sacrificial system (“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” [Mt. 9.13]). Jesus’ action thus pointed toward God’s eschatological salvation for all

52. Ibid., 130. 53. Ben F. Meyer, “Jesus Christ,” ABD, 3.790.

395

396

Fundamental Theology

people, which would do away with the need for the temple altogether. The God of Israel, it clearly implied, would be acting in a new way. Almost immediately Jesus was confronted by Jewish authorities who questioned his authority (Mk 11.27-33), but Jesus refrained (as usual) from answering their questions. He instead pointed to John the Baptizer and asked them about the source of John’s authority. On yet another occasion, Jesus spoke to his disciples about the coming destruction of the temple (Mk 13), and later his accusers quoted him as having said, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands” (Mk 14.58; cf. Jn 2.19-22). Any first-century Jew would have connected this statement with the prophet Nathan’s promise to King David: One of David’s sons would build a house for God’s name, and the throne of his kingdom would last forever. God would be a father to him, and he would be a son to God (2 Sam. 7.13-14). The Jerusalem temple would be destroyed, and it would be replaced by the temple of Jesus, who was also destroyed on the cross and raised from the tomb. Indeed, Jesus is the new king, the anointed one, who is also the new temple, through whom God is present and acting. Jesus’ death and resurrection are the ultimate way in which God’s kingdom has come.54 So how did Jesus end up on a cross? The chronology of John is quite different from the Synoptics, but all the Gospels narrate an account of Jesus’ final days that led to the cross and his death. The Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus died on a Friday, the day of preparation for the sabbath (Mk 15.42; Mt. 27.62; Lk. 23.54), which also seems to fit with Jn 19.31.55 While John’s Gospel does not have Jesus celebrating the Passover meal with his disciples that week, the Synoptics do. It seems likely that the Synoptics are reporting what basically took place. In the context of the Passover meal, Jesus instituted what would come to be called the Lord’s Supper. The words and actions of Jesus in this meal were a further way of interpreting his death as an expiatory offering and a sacrifice that sealed God’s new testament in the death of Jesus. Jesus 54. We might say, then, that the way in which ancient Israelites and Jews have thought about the Jerusalem temple, the dwelling place of the LORD, is similar to how Christians have thought about the body of Christ, the new temple of the LORD: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1.14 [RSV]); “for in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2.9). Cf. Mt. 12.6; Mt. 26.61 (an allusion to the destruction of Jesus’ body on the cross—the destruction of that temple of the LORD—and his resurrection from the dead, the rebuilding of a new, glorified, and indestructible temple); Mt. 27.51; and Rev. 21.22. The apostle Paul argued that the church, as the body of Christ, is now the temple of the Holy Spirit, the temple of the living God (cf. 1 Cor. 3.16-17, 6.19; 2 Cor. 6.16; and Eph. 2.21). 55. There is an ambiguity in the Johannine passages that refer to the “Day of Preparation” in relation to Jesus’ death. While Jn 19.31 seems to refer to the Day of Preparation for the sabbath (the day before the sabbath, Thursday sundown to Friday sundown), Jn 19.42 could refer to the Day of Preparation for the Passover (the day before the Passover, which could have been any day of the week). Jewish tradition did not permit the burial of a body on the sabbath.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

willingly gave himself up as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of Israel’s sins and the sins of the world. On the night that he celebrated the Passover, one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, betrayed him to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. The cowardly Peter also abandoned Jesus, by denying that he was one of his disciples. During a hastily convened trial before the Jewish council (the Sanhedrin), Jesus was asked by the high priest: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mk 14.61). Jesus’ answer, the only time in the Synoptics where Jesus affirmed his identity as the Messiah, sealed his fate: “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’ ” (Mk 14.62; the wording in Matthew and Luke is somewhat different; cf. Mt. 26.64; Lk. 22.67b-70). Condemned for blasphemy (probably for dishonoring the name of God by claiming to be his “Son”) and/or because the high priest saw Jesus as a threat to political peace with the Roman authorities (which the high priest wanted to preserve), Jesus was not killed by the Sanhedrin. Instead, he was sent to the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, who reluctantly found him guilty of sedition, despite his political innocence that is implied in his answers, as given in the Gospels. The verdict that hung around Jesus’ neck explained the nature of his crime. He claimed to be “the king of the Jews” over against the “legitimate” one, Herod Antipas. In the eyes of the Jewish high priest and of the Gentile Roman procurator, Jesus was guilty of instigating a rebellion against the lawful political order. For this offense, he was executed on the orders of Pilate, put to death by crucifixion, the typical Roman form of capital punishment for the most serious crimes such as treason or rebellion. The main aim of crucifixion was to torture the victim as long as possible and to serve as a public deterrence against such crimes.56 After having been found guilty of breaking the religious law of Judaism, Jesus died under Roman law, at the hands of those who carried out that law. In his dying, however, he himself acknowledged (according to the Gospel of Mark) that God, too, had judged him (cf. Gal. 3.13). Jesus cried out from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15.34). Jesus died, judged by humans and abandoned by God. And we must be clear about one thing: Jesus was really, really dead. Dead as a doornail, to use the Dickensian phrase. The Romans would have made sure of that, as they did for everyone else they crucified for rebelling against the law and order 56. See Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). Contrary to the Jewish Talmud, which teaches that Jesus was killed by stoning and then hanged (for the Jewish crimes of sorcery and enticing people to idolatry), and contrary to the Quran (An-Nisa 4.158), which states that Jesus ascended into heaven without dying, Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. That is the uniform witness of both the canonical sources and the earliest non-Christian Roman sources. Cf. the fourth tractate (Sanhedrin) in the fourth order (Neziqin), in The Talmud: A Selection, ed. and trans. Norman Solomon (New York: Penguin, 2009), 504–5.

397

398

Fundamental Theology

of Rome. Jesus was then taken from the cross and buried in a tomb by one of his disciples, Joseph of Arimathea (Jn 19.38-42). The story of Jesus, however, does not end with his crucifixion and death. His disciples reported that he had appeared to them a few days after his death.57 The tomb in which his corpse had been buried was found to be empty. A basic claim of the Christian faith is that Jesus was raised from the dead, that he is living and present in a new mode of being, and that he will play the crucial role as judge of the living and dead when the new age that he inaugurated is consummated. This one who had been dead is now living and will never die. The one who came proclaiming the kingdom and reign of God was now the one who was proclaimed by the apostles as their living Lord. These disciples who, after the trial and death of Jesus, had all scattered in helplessness and despair, and who suffered profound doubt, were now gathered anew, full of joy and peace and courage and hope. Those whose faith had been completely shaken and shipwrecked were now convinced that Jesus had been raised from the dead by almighty God, and thus vindicated by God. Their witness to Jesus’ resurrection and glorification was the beginning of the mission and expansion of the church beyond the limits of Palestine and throughout the world. No longer paralyzed by fear and mourning, no longer alarmed and disturbed by the death of Jesus, they boldly went out to proclaim that he was raised from the dead, that his death and resurrection marked the ultimate defeat of death and the new beginning of God’s creation. This Jesus, who was crucified and killed, God has raised to new life, they declared. By raising him from the dead, God has made this Jesus both Savior and Lord (Acts 2.36). While secular historians can talk about the death of Jesus as an historical fact, they encounter innumerable difficulties when trying to make sense of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. How can we talk about this event as an occurrence within history? There is no question that we run up against many challenges here, perhaps in a way that is similar to the wall of ignorance that confronts cosmologists when they attempt to talk about what took place before “the big bang.” And yet, the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead is at the heart of the apostolic message (1 Thess. 1.10; 1 Cor. 6.14, 15.3-8; Rom. 4.24, 8.11, 10.9; etc.). What some Jews traditionally expected to happen at the end of time (i.e., the resurrection of all people), Christians believe and confess has happened in the midst of history.58 The resurrection of Jesus 57. The most significant investigation of Jesus’ resurrection is by N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). See also Bruce Chilton, Resurrection Logic: How Jesus’ First Followers Believed God Raised Him from the Dead (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2019). Chilton surveys various conceptions of the afterlife that prevailed at the time of Jesus and then sequentially analyzes the multiple accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, contrasting the logic and “science” inherent in each account. 58. For an excellent exposition of the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead and their bodily restoration, see Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

has unveiled for the eyes of faith the end of history at the center of history. Jesus’ resurrection is the radical beginning of God’s new creation. The apostle Paul plainly stated that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, faith in him is “futile”: If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. (1 Cor. 15.13-20)

Skeptics, of course, will maintain that dead people, as a normal rule, cannot rise. Such a miracle, like all the miracles reported in the Gospels, cannot have taken place. But that is a Western scientific prejudice that refuses on principle to acknowledge the possibility of a divine type of action that transcends natural causes. As we noted in the last chapter, divine miracles do not necessarily break the laws, patterns, and regularities in nature. Natural laws apply only to natural events, while events that are directly caused by God lie beyond their domain.59 The divine art of miracles is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into the pattern … If what we call Nature is modified by supernatural power, then we may be sure that the capability of being so modified is of the essence of nature—that the total event, if we could grasp it, would turn out to involve, by its very character, the possibility of such modifications.60

A strictly secular-historicist approach to the apostolic witness to the resurrection of Jesus will have some difficulty accounting for the quick and radical change of the first disciples (which they attributed to the appearances of the risen Christ), the witness to the risen Christ by a chief opponent of the early church (namely, Saul [also called Paul] of Tarsus), and the historical course of the church itself, including its worship and prayer, the production of the NT letters, and the canonical Gospels— unless it all was based on a mass illusion, or was the result of the most intricate and enduring conspiracy of all time.61 But such conclusions stretch the imagination, as 59. Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 572. Cf. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd edn (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2017), 567–9. 60. Lewis, Miracles, 72, 74–5. 61. While some people have claimed that early Christians borrowed the concept of “resurrection” from various ancient mystery religions, which refer to the dying and rising of deities, in order to project that concept onto the historical Jesus (or even to have used such a concept to invent “Jesus” altogether), the Gospel accounts

399

400

Fundamental Theology

if the belief in the resurrection were somehow an inner projection of the disciples themselves, or as if hundreds of Jesus’ followers could have maintained such a fraudulent conspiracy for decades. Why would they have invented this hoax? What would have motivated these disciples to have stolen the body, hidden it away where no one could have found it, and then to have invented the tale of his appearances? What would have made these disciples so different from all the other failed disciples of all the other failed, would-be messiahs and revolutionary figures in that period of Judaism? If the resurrection reports of Jesus’ disciples, which contain a great many discrepancies, were a part of some mass conspiracy, surely those followers would have first gotten their stories straight! Why would they not have invented a simpler, more straight-forward account that did not involve an empty tomb? Why argue something so improbable, and so unexpected, unless those disciples were convinced by what they had seen and heard? One has to wonder, too, is such a conspiracy theory consistent with the character of the witnesses? with what happened to them later in their life, for example, what they suffered as a result of their resurrection faith? (It needs to be noted, too, that if the corpse of Jesus could have been produced by even one of the alleged conspirators, that would have nullified the claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead.) And how does one account for Paul’s own experience of Christ, which happened at least a few years later? If one is to fashion a kind of argument in favor of the biblical witness to the resurrection of Jesus, one can only point to (1) the dramatic change of the disciples, which remained relatively stable throughout the rest of their earthly lives, even in the face of persecution and dying for their faith; (2) the dramatic change in Saul of Tarsus, who went from fiercely opposing the early church to serving as one of its central apostles and who explained his about-face as the result of the revelation of the risen Christ that he had received (cf. Gal. 1-2; Phil. 3); (3) the existence and continued life of the Christian church, which worships and adores Jesus, honors him as the incarnate second Person of the Holy Trinity, and prays to him; (4) various reports in the history of the church about visions of the risen Christ that people have claimed to have received; and (5) the presupposition of natural theology, namely, that almighty God may be expected, on occasion, to set aside or act beyond the known laws of nature. For millions of people down through the centuries, the apostolic witness to the risen Christ has become the basis for their living faith within the community of believers. They regularly celebrate the Lord’s Supper on that same apostolic basis. Moreover, the apostolic witness has been accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit of Jesus’ last week are too firmly grounded in history to allow for such fanciful conclusions. For a helpful critique of the view that the Christian teaching of the resurrection of Jesus comes from ancient mystery religions, see Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory Boyd, The Jesus Legend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). The eternal dying and rebirth in nature, which one finds depicted in the accounts of dying and rising gods in the mystery religions, are tied to patterns in nature, not to events that happened to a real person in history.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

who evokes faith in the risen Christ and sustains it in the most trying of circumstances, not least during historic and present persecutions of Christians, who willingly suffer and die in faithfulness to Christ.62 This is not to say that the narratives about the resurrection of Jesus are free of historical problems. Any attentive reader of the NT can identify the discrepancies among the accounts simply by comparing the appearances of the risen Jesus that Paul enumerated in the oldest and most reliable Easter text (1 Cor. 15.3-8) with the narratives of the risen Jesus in the canonical Gospels. Paul’s list finds no counterpart in the Gospel accounts. Moreover, Paul himself did not mention the women coming to the empty tomb, nor did he refer to some of the other appearances of the risen Jesus to others (e.g., to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Lk. 24.13-35). Paul and Luke both indicate that the first appearance of the risen Jesus was to “Cephas” (1 Cor. 15.5 = “Peter”) or “Simon” (Lk. 24.34), but there is no such narrative account in the Gospels. The four Gospels themselves differ significantly in what they report about the resurrection appearances. The original ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mk 16.18) contains no appearances of the risen Christ at all. (The verses that come after Mk 16.8 are not found in the oldest copies of Mark’s Gospel.) Mark thus agrees with Paul, namely, that the risen Christ first appeared to his disciples in Galilee, not in and around Jerusalem. Luke’s Gospel, however, consistently places all of the resurrection appearances in and around Jerusalem. John’s account is altogether different from those in the Synoptics and highlights Jesus’ appearance to his disciple Mary Magdalene. Most significantly, none of the authentic witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus tried to depict the resurrection itself or the specific features of the risen Christ. Furthermore, early stories about the discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus were subordinated in the earliest preaching about the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 15.38). Paul did not write about the empty tomb, although Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 15.3558 would suggest that the resurrected body of Jesus was transformed so that it became “a spiritual body,” a mode of being that accorded with his risen life.63 Since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15.50), the nature of Jesus’ risen “spiritual body” has to be radically different from his earthly body, “more real” than what we moderns understand by “reality.”64 It is worth pondering that Paul did not try to describe his own mystical experience of the risen Christ. He simply noted that the risen one revealed himself to (or in) him. And on the basis of that experience, Paul sought only to know the risen Christ and the power of his resurrection, so that he might share in Christ’s sufferings, “becoming like him in his death,” that if possible 62. These points receive elaboration in the essays by Stephen T. Davis, Richard Swinburne, and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza in the book, The Resurrection, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 126–47, 191–248. 63. Vincent Taylor, The Life and Ministry of Jesus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1955), 228. 64. See Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).

401

402

Fundamental Theology

he “might attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil. 3.10-11 [RSV]). Surely Paul saw some continuity between the sufferings he experienced in his physical earthly body and the glorification of his body as a “spiritual body” in the resurrection from the dead. Another point that needs to be noted is that the disciples were kept from recognizing the risen Christ until he revealed his true identity to them. For example, the disciples on the way to Emmaus did not know to whom they were speaking until that person—Jesus—made himself known to them in the breaking of the bread (Lk. 24.31). Other accounts report the same phenomenon (cf. Jn 20.11-18, 21.4-14). So the being of the risen Jesus is different from what it had been prior to his death. A clear indication of this new being is that none of the disciples can take hold of the risen Christ as if he were still an ordinary human being. He makes himself suddenly present where and when he wills, and just as quickly he vanishes from sight, only to make himself present again elsewhere. Obviously, Christian faith in Jesus’ resurrection did not and does not depend on a uniformity of the details in the various Gospel traditions, nor should we expect the church to insist on a single “correct” way to understand the resurrection of Jesus—or our own hoped-for resurrection, for that matter. It is impossible to harmonize all the details in the various narratives by means of speculative reconstruction, and we should not even attempt to do so. What we find embedded in the Gospel traditions are earlier, local traditions that circulated independently of one another, traditions that vary in historical value and cannot be reconciled with one another in their specific details. The early church chose to maintain all of the resurrection accounts, despite the obvious tensions and discrepancies among them (which have been recognized by intelligent Christians from the earliest centuries of the church). But the basic feature is not in question: on multiple occasions and varying circumstances, different individuals and even groups of individuals (in one case, 500 disciples at one time) saw the risen Jesus appear to them. The NT records 12 appearances over a forty-day period (cf. 1 Cor. 15; Gal. 1-2; Mt. 28; Lk. 24; Jn 20-21; Acts 1, 9). Other accounts report that the tomb of Jesus was empty and that he had been raised from the dead. According to Mark, the young man said to the woman at the empty tomb: “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you” (Mk 16.6-7). What do Christians mean when they believe, teach, and confess that Jesus rose from the dead? Surely, the resurrection of Jesus is something different from the resuscitation or reanimation of a corpse, and his ascension has to be quite different from some kind of flying off into outer space, as if heaven was simply a spot beyond the stratosphere. The ways in which the Gospels describe the actions of the risen Christ indicate that his mode of being was different from what it had been before his death.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

There is a basic transformation of the corpse of Jesus that defies description—or our complete understanding. We certainly cannot speak about the resurrection of Jesus as “an historical fact” in the same way that we can talk about his death on the cross as such a fact. Human life in the new creation—which is how Christians can speak of Jesus’ life now—is radically different from how our human life is lived under the conditions of this present age. Paul thus contrasted the “spiritual,” changed nature of the resurrected body with the “physical” nature of our mortal body as it is lived in this old aeon. The “precise nature of the body, as well as the character of the appearances themselves, remain matters for reverent speculation, since so much is hidden from us. No obligation is imposed upon us either to ignore the difficulties in the resurrection narratives or to attempt to explain them away.”65 It is good to remember, too, that among the theologians in the early church there was a diversity of opinions regarding the nature of Jesus’ resurrection. Given that there is no single, consistent account of the Easter event, nor a single, consistent understanding of the resurrection among early church theologians, there ought to be room for open-ended, honest wonder and humble discussion among contemporary Christians as to its meaning today. While early Christian faith in the risen Christ has shaped the Gospel narratives, the basic message itself was not the creation of early Christians. According to the oldest traditions, that message has its basis in the appearances of the risen Christ, which were themselves possible, according to those traditions, because God himself acted in a unique way, that is, without historical analogy. The resurrection is above all God’s vindication of the despised and crucified Jesus, but it is also the further in-breaking of God’s new creation in the midst of the old one, marked by sin and death. Jesus’ abandonment by God on the cross was now interpreted as a suffering for sin, as a sacrificial offering, as the means by which God has reconciled sinners with himself. Jesus, though innocent in himself, died as a sinner on the cross, indeed, as “the greatest sinner of all and the only sinner on earth.”66 This was because God put upon him the sins of the world, to overcome God’s judgment against sinners, to reconcile sinners with himself. The apostle Paul puts it this way: “Be reconciled to God. For our sake God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5.20b-21). The resurrection of Jesus is God’s way of establishing his kingdom. Such an in-breaking, such an establishment, is still only a matter of faith, for it is not visible to all. Christians, too, are still waiting for the final revelation of the glorified Jesus—and their own revelation with him in glory. In the meantime, the Christian church (as the people of God who are gathered in the name of Christ) understands itself to be the messianic community in which Israel was restored, though not in the visible political way that ancient Israel expected. This community celebrates reconciliation with God, 65. Taylor, The Life and Ministry of Jesus, 228. 66. Martin Luther, “First Sermon at the Baptism of Bernard of Anhalt” (1540), LW2, 58.45.

403

404

Fundamental Theology

the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and salvation, even for people, such as Peter, who had “denied” Jesus, or for people, such as Paul, who had persecuted Jesus. The way in which the followers of Jesus talk about him has changed as a result of his resurrection and glorification. He is confessed to be the Messiah, the promised descendant of Abraham, the promised son of David, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the suffering servant (prophesied by Second Isaiah), the Savior, and the Lord. (This last title links him to the name that was spoken to Moses [Exod. 3.14], which Jews use to call upon the God of Israel.) Christians thus ascribe to Christ honors that the earthly Jesus did not claim for himself.67 Christians use other honorific titles as well when they confess their faith in Jesus, for example, the living one, the exalted one, king of kings, lord of lords, and so on.68 He whose earthly life was one of complete humility has now been exalted by God, who has now given him the name “that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2.9-11). This portion of an early Christian hymn, quoted by Paul in one of his letters, alludes to the word of God spoken by one of the OT prophets: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess” (Isa. 45.23). Only God is to be worshiped and confessed, and yet now Jesus is worshiped and confessed. People were ascribing to Jesus the honor and glory that the OT stated was to be solely reserved for God alone. Early Christians viewed Jesus as the glorified Son of Man, who is sitting at the right hand of God (cf. Dan. 7.9-10: “I saw one like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven”) and who will come again. They viewed Jesus as “the lamb of God” who is also sitting on the throne of God, the place reserved for God alone (cf. Rev. 7.17: “for the lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd” [emphasis added]). Early Christians viewed Jesus as the incarnate Word of God, through whom God created all things (Jn 1.1-18). The full humanity and the divinity of Jesus are rooted in these and several other NT passages (e.g., Heb. 1.2-4). Jesus is fully human, and yet he is also divine, worthy of being worshiped, adored, and praised. Christians thus worship the risen Christ (cf. Mt. 28.17a) as they do God the Father (and eventually the Holy Spirit, too). They adore the name of Jesus the Christ, and they are grateful to share in his eternal, divine life. After their death, they expect their own bodies to be raised to become like his glorified body: “We will bear the image of the heavenly human being” (1 Cor. 15.49); “What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him” (1 Jn 3.2). 67. For a helpful analysis of the title “Son of God” as it came to be applied to Jesus, see Martin Hengel, The Son of God, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985), 30–52. 68. For the development of christological titles in early Christianity, see Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology, trans. Harold Knight and George Ogg (Cleveland: World, 1969); and Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

Moreover, seeking to obey the commission of the risen Christ, the church, as the messianic community, now reaches out to others to invite them to join them in following the crucified, risen, and glorified Christ. The church makes other disciples of Jesus by baptizing them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and by teaching them to heed all that Jesus has taught (Mt. 28.19-20). Followers of Christ trust his promise that he will be present with them always, to the close of this old age. They trust that by becoming one with him through baptism into his death and resurrection (Rom. 6), their life is “hid with Christ in God,” and that when Christ who is their life appears, they will also “appear with him in glory” (Col. 3.3-4 [RSV]). They trust that the resurrection of Christ makes a difference for them in this frail, mortal life, until their life’s end. Their life is not meaningless, empty, or futile. Their death is not the end of their relationship to God. They trust that his resurrection opens for them life in the world to come, which Christ has prepared for them (Jn 14.2). For this reason, Paul could write: “I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8.38-39). In the meantime, Christians are called to live their lives on the basis of this promise, to serve as instruments of God’s redeeming love, and to expect Christ’s coming in glory. The Son of Man, about whom Jesus spoke as someone other than himself, Christians now identify as the risen Christ, who “will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”69 The church thus awaits the coming of the Son of Man at the end of time, when the new creation will be consummated and God will be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15.28). Those realities, of course, are beyond our natural imagination and require the vision of faith and hope that only the Holy Spirit can provide.

The re-creating Spirit and the new creation The early Christian community was founded on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. To be sure, Jesus’ disciples had been learning from him prior to that experience, but they were not yet gathered together as the church (Greek: ekklesia, = “the calledout ones”). That did not happen until the risen Christ appeared among them, commissioned them, equipped them with the Spirit, and sent them into the world to be his witnesses. Among the last words Jesus said to his disciples are these: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses

69. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, BC, 23; cf. The Apostles’ Creed, BC, 22.

405

406

Fundamental Theology

in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1.8). Called and gathered by the risen Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, the church is a community of faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13). As an early Christian letter puts the matter: “By God’s great mercy God has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who are being protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1.35). The community to whom this letter was addressed is depicted as an assembly of strangers who were nevertheless brought together into a holy communion through the working of the Holy Spirit. As such, those believers were brought from death into the new life that the risen Christ gives. They were thus filled with a “living hope,” which abides despite all suffering, setback, and even physical death. This living hope was empowered through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, whom God the Father has sent through the Son. According to the second part of Luke’s Gospel (the book of Acts), this outpouring of the Spirit took place on the Jewish day of Pentecost (Acts 2). This Jewish festival fell fifty days after the annual Passover celebration. (“Pentecost” = “fiftieth” in Greek.) Pentecost was a harvest festival, celebrating the first fruits. The symbolism is clear: with the coming of the Spirit, the first fruits of God’s new creation were beginning to sprout. As depicted in the book of Acts, the apostle Peter interpreted this outpouring of God’s Spirit as the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy from Joel 2: In the last days, God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, sons and daughters will prophesy, young men shall see visions, old men will dream dreams. Even slaves, both male and female, will receive the Holy Spirit, and they too shall preach. It was to be the time of the end of God’s old creation and the dawning of the new one. The Spirit is sent into the lives of Christ’s people, making Christ present in and through them, guiding them, and enabling them to bear witness to Jesus as Lord and Savior. The coming of the Spirit is the concluding mighty act of God in human history. When the Spirit comes into their lives, Jesus’ followers are empowered to do very specific things in his name. The mission of the church is grounded in worship, God’s service to us through his word and sacraments, and our service to God through praise, adoration, and the obedience of faith. Through preaching and teaching (and struggling against false teaching); through the sacraments of grace (e.g., baptism, the Lord’s Supper); through the singing of hymns, praying, confessing sins, forgiving sins; through the adoration of the triune God; and through witnessing to God’s mighty deeds—in all these ways, the church bears witness to God’s action in and through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The resurrection and glorification of Jesus, as well as the outpouring of the Spirit, have made all the difference in how Christ’s followers talk about God. And yet, the mission of the church that began at Pentecost has been anything but a smooth and triumphant process of telling the world that Jesus is its Savior and Lord.

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

The church has often failed miserably in its mission. It has not loved the world as Jesus has loved it. It has often adopted the coercive measures by which the world enforces its own agendas and power structures, altogether contrary to what Jesus taught his followers: “You know how the rulers of the world lord it over their subjects, how the mighty ones are tyrants over them. But it is not to be so among you. Whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all” (Mk 10.42-44 [paraphrased]). The church has used violence, spoken mistruths, acted immorally, committed scandal after scandal. The church has been silent when it should have spoken out against injustice, abuse, and manifest evils. It has distorted the truth of the gospel that it has been given to speak. That is why the church must continually pray, “Forgive us our sins, O Lord. Lead us by your Spirit to be faithful to you and to your teaching. Not our will be done, but your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The true and faithful methods of serving under the risen Christ involve humility and suffering and the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5); they involve heeding and obeying the teaching of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount and in his other teachings. The followers of Jesus are called to join their Savior and Lord in patiently suffering for the world, sharing in his victory by following his humble path of service and crossbearing for others. The words of Jesus in Mt. 16.18-19 must also be understood in the light of Jesus’ resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The “rock” on which Jesus will build his church is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah. That confession is the foundation on which the risen Christ “will build” his church (ekklesia). In other words, the teaching of Peter and the other apostles is the authoritative foundation of the church, but Jesus is its builder. Devotion to the apostles’ teaching, preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, praying in the name of Jesus—these actions are empowered by the Spirit, against which the powers of death will not prevail. The church is thus an eschatological community, which baptizes in the name of Jesus, proclaims by means of the Spirit’s power and guidance, prays in the name of Jesus, celebrates the Lord’s Supper in the certainty that he is already present with it and is coming again, and carries out works of mercy in his name.

Questions for review and discussion 1. What is “the gospel” according to Jesus (cf. Mk 1.14-15)? What is “the gospel” according to the apostle Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 15.1-8)? How are we to account for the differences between their respective understandings?

407

408

Fundamental Theology















2. What, then, is a “Gospel?” Scholars recognize that the canonical Gospels are neither “biographies” nor strictly “histories” in the modern sense of these terms. How should we describe the genre of a “Gospel?” What is the basic scholarly consensus about the historical origin of the canonical Gospels? When were they edited/written? What are we to make of the temporal distance between the death of Jesus in AD 30 and the formation of the first written Gospel (Mark) around the year 70? Why do the majority of scholars today hold that Mark was the first Gospel to be composed? Be familiar with the four-source theory for solving the Synoptic Problem. 3. Which of the following two questions is more important to you: Who was Jesus? Who is Jesus? How might these two questions have differing presuppositions about Jesus? Why do scholars make a distinction between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith?” How did Kähler address that distinction? Why have other scholars, such as Jeremias, Althaus, and Wright, found Kähler’s position problematic? How “historical” are the Gospels? 4. What did Jesus teach about the coming kingdom of God? How do his parables disclose aspects of that coming kingdom? 5. Which of Jesus’ teachings is the most difficult for us to accept and follow today? Which of his teachings do you think are most needed in our world today? 6. How should we understand the reports about Jesus’ miracles? What is your view toward the possibility of divine intervention or divine miracles in the world? 7. Why did Jesus die by crucifixion? Which historical factors led to his death? What are some of the historic dangers in discussing who was responsible for the death of Jesus (e.g., anti-Semitism)? From an apostolic point of view, why and for whom did Jesus die? How are we to understand Jesus’ cry of dereliction on the cross (Mk 15.34)? 8. How are we to understand the apostolic witness to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? Were the witnesses to that event reliable? In your view, which evidence, if any, is the most persuasive for supporting the belief that Jesus rose from the dead? What evidence, if any, counts against that belief? How might the resurrection of Jesus be understood as a new way of knowing Jesus? 9. What significance do the various honorific titles for Jesus have for our understanding of who he was/is? Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah? Did Jesus claim to be God? How did Jesus come to be worshiped and honored as the Lord? 10. The chapter presents Jesus as “the center” of salvation history, the Messiah who both fulfills and surpasses the basic promises of the old covenant. What does it mean to speak of Jesus in this way? How is Bultmann’s view different from the one argued for here? Where do you come down on this issue? What significance does the Jesus of history have for Christian faith today?

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

Suggestions for further reading Please note: For more detailed information about the individual books of the Bible, including the Gospels and the NT letters, see the “BS” section of any university or seminary library, where important biblical commentaries are arranged in the order in which the books appear in the Bible.

Brief introductions to biblical theology James Barr, Erwin Fahlbusch, John Mbiti, Seiichi Yagi, Ulrich Schoenborn, and Luise Schottroff, “Biblical Theology,” EC, 1.246–55. Bernd Janowski and Michael Welker, “Biblical Theology,” RPP, 2.83–9. Werner E. Lemke, “Theology (OT),” ABD, 6.449–73. Robert Morgan, “Theology (NT),” ABD, 6.473–83. Henning Graf Reventlow, “Theology (Biblical), History of,” ABD, 6.483–505.

On biblical theology James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). [A critical, comprehensive analysis of various approaches to biblical theology by multiple scholars.] Matthew Becker, The Self-giving God and Salvation History: The Trinitarian Theology of Johannes von Hofmann (New York: T&T Clark, 2004). [The only scholarly treatment in English of this important German scholar. Hofmann interpreted the Bible as “the monument” to God’s acts of salvation in history. Hofmann is thus often referred to as “the father of Heilsgeschichte,” the father of a salvation-historical approach to the Bible.] Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribners, 1951, 1955). [Classic statement of theological themes in the New Testament by the most important NT scholar of the twentieth century. Bultmann interpreted the NT in existential terms, contrary to those who view the Bible as containing a record of salvation history.] Oscar Cullmann, Salvation in History, trans. Sidney G. Sowers (London: SCM, 1967). [Cullmann’s salvation-historical approach echoes that of von Hofmann. This work was aimed against Bultmann’s existentialist approach to the NT.] Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols, ed. Jürgen Roloff, trans. John Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–2). [Goppelt’s work maintains continuity with the salvation-historical approach of von Hofmann and is the most impressive work in NT biblical theology between Bultmann and Stuhlmacher.] Gerhard von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1962–5). [An immensely important work by one of the most influential OT scholars of the past century. Von Rad focused on creed-like units of tradition that confess God’s ongoing salvific action in the history of Israel.]

409

410

Fundamental Theology

Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. and trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018). [An insightful, engaging investigation of biblical theology by one of the most influential NT scholars of the past half century.]

Reference works on Jesus and the Gospels Marcus J. Borg, “The Teaching of Jesus Christ,” ABD, 3.804–12. Mark Edwards, “Jesus Christ,” ODCC, 1.1006–9. Adrian Hastings, “Jesus,” OCCT, 340–3. Ben F. Meyer, “Jesus Christ,” ABD, 3.773–96. N. T. Wright, “Jesus, Quest for the Historical,” ABD, 3.796–802.

On Jesus and the Gospels Dale C. Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). [A wonderful, thoughtful analysis of the abiding questions in the scholarly quest to understand the historical Jesus.] Richard J. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). [A compelling, exhaustive argument for viewing the canonical Gospels as grounded on the eyewitness testimony of the apostles of Jesus.] Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey and James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960). [An excellent brief account of Jesus by a leading post-Bultmannian scholar. This work helped to inaugurate the “new quest” for the historical Jesus in the 1950s and 1960s.] Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963). [A classic form-critical investigation of the Synoptic Gospels by the most significant twentieth-century scholar of the NT.] Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. Louise Pettibone-Smith and Erminie Huntress Lantero (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934). [Despite Bultmann’s skepticism about knowing much about the historical Jesus, his little book on Jesus firmly anchors Jesus in Judaism. Bultmann, whose work has dominated NT studies for the past century, depicts Jesus as a Jewish rabbi and an eschatological prophet.] Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, eds., The Resurrection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). [An excellent collection of essays that examine the resurrection of Jesus from a variety of disciplines.] C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). [Dodd argues that behind the Gospel of John lie traditions that were independent of the Synoptic traditions and that these other traditions provide additional knowledge about the historical Jesus.] Martin Hengel, Christ and Power, trans. Everett R. Kalin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). [A succinct study of Jesus’ authority in relation to the political and religious powers of his day and the historical development of Christianity and the imperial church.]

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). [An excellent, brief overview of the ancient Roman form of capital punishment and Jesus’ own crucifixion.] Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). [This outstanding work is the most comprehensive historical study of the rise of beliefs about Jesus in the first two centuries.] Joachim Jeremias, Jesus and the Message of the New Testament, ed. K. C. Hanson, trans. Norman Perrin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002). [These classic essays by a leading twentieth-century NT scholar offer abiding insights into the teaching of the historical Jesus in relation to its Semitic background. Jeremias was another important figure in the so-called “new quest” for the historical Jesus.] Joachim Jeremias, Rediscovering the Parables, trans. S. H. Hooke and Frank Clarke (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966). [Still the best brief introduction to the parables of Jesus.] Luke Timothy Johnson, Miracles: God’s Presence and Power in Creation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2018). [NT scholar Johnson invites the reader to imagine the world as the Scriptures imagine it, affirming God’s active presence in creation.] Martin Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964). [Kähler’s work, which remains unsurpassed, shows that the canonical Gospels are not primarily sources for the historical Jesus as much as they are narrative expansions of the early church’s proclamation about Jesus as the risen and glorified Christ.] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1947). [A classic defense of the miracles of Jesus, written by one of the most erudite and influential Christian apologists of the twentieth century.] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2016). [Perhaps the most thorough scholarly investigation into the historical Jesus by a key figure in the “third quest.”] Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: 1967). [An important study of the teaching of Jesus by an American scholar who aligned himself with those who established the “new quest” for the historical Jesus.] Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, 2 vols (London: Bloomsbury, 2007–11). [An important historical-theological study by the person who would be elected Pope Benedict XVI.] E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993). [This is the best one-volume introduction into the historical problems and probabilities regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Along with N. T. Wright, Sanders has been a key figure within the so-called “third quest” for the historical Jesus, that is, he was one of those who seek to understand Jesus primarily within the context of second-temple Judaism, and who thought that, with scholarly effort, the Gospels do provide important information about the historical Jesus. Sanders began with Jesus’ actions against the temple and then turned to his authentic teachings, which he tried to sift out from later faithprojections and conflicts of the early church onto Jesus.]

411

412

Fundamental Theology

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, ed. John Bowden, trans. William Montgomery, J. R. Coates, Susan Cupitt, and John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). [Still unsurpassed as an analytical survey of all of the major and many minor attempts to uncover the historical Jesus “behind” the church’s written Gospels.] B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924). [The classic work that argues for Marcan priority and the hypothetical source (“Q”) of Jesus’ sayings that was used by Matthew and Luke.] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). [Wright is the most significant NT scholar of the past half century. He is a leading figure in the “third quest” for the historical Jesus.] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). [Wright’s defense of a traditional orthodox understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, informed by mainstream expectations for the future within second-temple Judaism.] N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011). [Wright is one of the leading figures in contemporary scholarly discussions about who Jesus was—and is. His account is shaped by equal concerns to take the findings of historical-critical research seriously and to affirm the basic apostolic, orthodox claims regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus. This book is the place to begin before turning to Wright’s other, larger works.]

On the apostle Paul Hans Dieter Betz, “Paul,” ABD, 5.186–201. Günther Bornkamm, Paul, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1971). [Similar to his study of Jesus, Bornkamm’s work on Paul’s life and theology remains a classic.] Markus Brockmuehl, “Paul, St.,” ODCC, 2.1457–61. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). [The magnum opus of one of the great British evangelical scholars of the NT.] W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2nd edn (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). [A groundbreaking study that demonstrates that, despite Hellenistic elements in Paul’s thought, he stood firmly within first-century Rabbinic Judaism.] James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). [This work by a leading British NT scholar provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of all the key themes and issues in Paul’s theology.] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993). [A helpful compendium of more than 200 articles that address all aspects of Paul’s life and thought.] Morna Hooker, “Paul,” OCCT, 521–4. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). [An influential study that examines the letters of Paul from a social and historical perspective rather than a theological one.]

Jesus as the Center of Salvation History

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). [An important introduction to Paul’s life and ideas written by a leading Roman Catholic scholar.] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). [An older but still quite useful study of Paul’s theology by a leading Reformed scholar.] E. P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2015). [Written in the same engaging style as his book on Jesus, Sanders’s work on Paul offers an excellent introduction to the historical Paul.] Anthony C. Thiselton, The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle’s Life and Thought (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010). [This slim volume offers another starting point for the beginning student.] Virginia Wiles, Making Sense of Paul: A Basic Introduction to Pauline Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000). [This little book is a great place for the beginning student to begin. Wiles invites the reader to make connections between Paul’s theology and themes in literature, art, and film.] Michael Wolter, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. Robert L. Brawley (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2015). [A massive and insightful overview of Paul’s theology that complements the work by Dunn, cited earlier.]

On the apostle John and the Johannine community Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). [These essays by a leading British evangelical NT scholar bring patristics into play in evaluating the historical and theological dimensions of the Fourth Gospel.] John Behr, “John, St.,” ODCC, 1016. Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979). [A creative attempt to reconstruct the community of the disciples of the apostle John who were responsible for the Fourth Gospel and the letters of John. This little book summarizes the perspective that Brown gained as he completed his massive twovolume commentary on the Gospel of John.] Raymond F. Collins, “John (Disciple),” ABD, 3.883–6.

413

11 Key Themes in Special Revelation This chapter briefly identifies key elements within the special revelation of God: God the Creator, Christ the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit, the Author of the new creation. The chapter examines such topics as the law of God, christology, soteriology, and the work of the Holy Spirit to create and sustain the church through word and sacraments. After providing an overview of trinitarian theology, the chapter ends by identifying the promise of the gospel as the principal theme in Christian theology.

While summarizing all the individual themes and topics within the divine selfrevelation would take us well beyond the purpose of this book (if one wrote about each of them at length, one would end up producing something like a summary of Christian doctrine); a few of them, including the key theme of the gospel promise, should be mentioned here so as to clarify further the special content of the subject matter of Christian theology. Together, these basic themes embrace the fullness of the subject of Christian theology, which includes both the general revelation of God (natural knowledge of God) and the special revelation of God (the knowledge that is given in the self-revelation of the triune God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus the Christ).

God the Creator The first of these basic themes within the special revelation of God is that God is the one, almighty Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. This is the affirmation of the great Jewish Shema: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD, our God, is one LORD” (Deut. 6.4). Jesus also affirmed this teaching, as did his apostles (Mk 12.29). It is consistent with the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods” (Exod. 20.3). Paul, too, insisted on this basic monotheistic point: “There is no other God but one” (1 Cor. 8.4). This is why Luther interpreted the First Commandment to mean, “We should fear, love, and

Key Themes in Special Revelation

trust God above all things.”1 Within the apostolic witness, God the Creator is the God of Israel, the One who made promises to Abram (Gen. 12) and to David (2 Sam. 7), who delivered the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them the Law (Exod. 1–20), who spoke through the biblical prophets, and, most significantly, who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 4.24).2 The gift of the Holy Spirit has been given to the world in order to bear witness to the salvation accomplished through Jesus’ death and resurrection, to awaken faith in him, and to prepare creation for its ultimate consummation in the new creation. Christians thus respond to God’s work as the Creator by confessing him to be “the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things, seen and unseen” (the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed), or “the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth” (the Apostles’ Creed).3 We have already noted that the general revelation of God also reveals God as the Creator. But the special revelation of God goes beyond what is disclosed in that general revelation. How so? For starters, the Creator is identified as “the LORD” of Israel, who alone is almighty God, who governs all things, and whose eternal glory is wholly different from all that is created. Moreover, Jesus teaches that one can trust this Creator as a child trusts a loving parent. One is invited by Jesus to call upon the Creator as “Our Father” (Mt. 6.9; cf. Lk. 11.2). As the eternal LORD, God has freely called the universe into being through his immeasurable power, and he continues to govern and preserve his creation. Contrary to German idealist understandings of God, God does not “become” the LORD by creating and preserving the universe, as if God needed the world as a counterpart in order to be God. Nor does God become God through the adoration and praise of God’s creatures. The universe is completely dependent on God for its being, but God is not dependent upon it. God is the eternal LORD prior to creation and independent of all creaturely action. Moreover, God is not subject to any necessity, as if God had to create the universe in order to be God. God is not to be understood as the imminent purpose or principle or essence of the world, as in some forms of religious pantheism or panentheism. Rather, God has created the universe purely out of God’s divine freedom and love. Contrary to all forms of Deism, which hold that God merely created the universe “in the beginning” to function like a clock or an autonomous machine, God is actively present to his creation, continuously preserving and governing it. God is the Creator of the universe now. God continues to act as the Creator of the whole cosmos in a continuous act of creation (creatio continua).

1. Luther, Small Catechism (Ten Commandments), BC, 351. For Luther, “fearing God” meant “honoring and obeying God.” 2. Jenson, Systematic Theology, 1.42. 3. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 381), BC, 22–3; The Apostles’ Creed, BC, 21–2.

415

416

Fundamental Theology

Christians do not believe that God preserves and governs the universe in a capricious manner. Rather, according to the aforementioned ancient creeds, Christians confess God to be “Our Father.” What does this mean? Many Christian theologians teach that this form of address is neither a straightforward nor a metaphorical predicate of God but an abiding, normative term of address to God that is to be used and maintained within any authentic, orthodox Christian community.4 While these theologians are aware of the challenges that arise from all speaking about God, including the need to take into account the analogical character of all biblical terms for God, they insist that the name that Jesus taught his disciples to use in prayer is normative for all times, just as the triune name that is given at the end of Matthew’s Gospel is also normative for Christian baptism.5 According to Schlink, we should not tamper with the principal name that Jesus has given Christians to use when speaking to God. While the use of “Father” to refer to God should not be understood to imply any human-like gender or paternity, it does seem right that this name that Jesus taught his disciples to use should be maintained and respected. Such use also helps to avoid theological formulations that suggest division in God, or that appear to compromise God’s unity. One can make a good case that calling God “Father” need not imply patriarchy or an anthropomorphic projection of earthly fatherhood onto God.6 Nevertheless, this traditional, orthodox position with respect to the name of “Father” for God does not completely remove the challenges that all finite human language encounters with respect to the incomprehensibility of the infinite God, nor does it eliminate the need for analogical understanding in all human reference to God. Indeed, no other name for God has likely been more profaned by its abuse, especially against women. So, we must be aware of the sinful tendency of human beings to misuse this name for God, as well as other masculine terms, for their own selfish, sinful, and ideological ends. In light of these challenges and problems, some Christian theologians argue that one should use more inclusive language for God, such as “loving Parent,” or allow for the use of both “Father” and “Mother” in reference to the Creator.7 It is important to note that masculine names and images for God are not the only ones that are legitimated in Holy Scripture. On occasion, motherly, feminine images for God are also set forth (cf. Deut. 32.10-18; Ps. 61.4; Mt. 23.37).8 4. Jenson, Systematic Theology, 1.45. 5. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, ESW, 2/1.355–9. 6. Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity & Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 18. Cf. Rebecca Chopp, The Power to Speak: Feminism, Language, God (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 110–15. 7. For examples of this type of feminist theology, see Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983); and Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk (Boston: Beacon, 1983). 8. Several feminist/womanist theologians reject all male terms for God. These individuals seek to develop new terms and metaphors for God, and a few such theologians are calling for the restoration of goddess

Key Themes in Special Revelation

Still, the normative teaching of Jesus with respect to the name of “Father,” as well as the abiding teaching of the Second Commandment (“You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD, your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name” [Exod. 20.7]), should give us pause with respect to the appropriate use of these names for the Creator. Understanding the various names for God that are given in Scripture is an ongoing task within Christian theology. Certainly, the intent of Jesus’ form of address to God (“Abba,” “Father,” “Daddy”), which cannot fully avoid being a metaphorical predicate as well as a normative term of address, is to underscore God’s loving care for all that God has created and redeemed through Christ, the Son of God (a term that also invites analogical interpretation), and that God can be addressed “boldly and with complete confidence, just as loving children ask their loving father.”9 On the basis of Christ and his teaching Christians believe that God has created them “together with all that exists,” that God provides for all of their needs, and protects and defends them, all because of “pure divine goodness and mercy.”10 In other words, one can count on God as “the source, ground, and sovereign of all that we are and experience,”11 or, to paraphrase one of Gilkey’s teachers, as the creating, sustaining, and directing ground of being.12 The confession of the fatherly Creator is based on faith in Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, who places the cry of “Abba” into our hearts. By faith in Jesus Christ, we may trust God as our Creator. After all, none of the injustices and disasters of this world remained foreign to Jesus. He proclaimed the Father by taking upon himself the sin and condemnation of the world, and therefore transformed the suffering of those who follow him into a path to glory. All experiences receive new meaning through faith in him.13

In this contemporary, existential relation to God (“God has created me and everything else”), the Creator is not merely the originating cause of all that is, but also the continuing Creator who brings novelty out of the old, “the power that gives us our past and preserves it, that creates and recreates our freedom, and that lures and calls us with new possibilities.”14 This idea has been classically expressed with the Latin phrase, “creatio continua,” that creation is an ongoing project of God. In this

language and imagery, a move that seems to create a new religion. For a classic work in this vein, see Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father (Boston: Beacon, 1973). 9. Luther, Small Catechism (the Lord’s Prayer), BC, 356. 10. Luther, Small Catechism (the Apostles’ Creed), BC, 354. 11. Langdon Gilkey, Message and Existence: An Introduction to Christian Theology (New York: Seabury, 1979), 69. Gilkey preferred to refer to God as “Parent-Almighty.” 12. Cf. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1.253, 263, and 287. 13. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, ESW, 2/1.358. 14. Gilkey, Message and Existence, 84.

417

418

Fundamental Theology

view, God is also the goal of all that is, the one who calls people out of death into new life, the one who creates a new heaven and a new earth. Most Christians thus believe that ultimately God will recreate them into the image and likeness of the risen Jesus Christ and bring them into heaven, where they will know God more fully, “face to face” (1 Cor. 13.12). The revelation of God the Creator has implications not only for one’s understanding of the nature of reality—that it is, at least partly, an intelligible cosmos and not a wholly unknowable chaos—but also for one’s understanding of God’s relation to humankind and of the ultimate goal or purpose of the cosmos: that humankind has been created by God for relationship with God. The meaning of human life is to be discovered in one’s relationship to God, as creature to Creator. The world itself is affirmed as the gift of God, the arena in which God is acting for the good of God’s creatures, the place of human flourishing and moral responsibility. Other implications of the biblical witness to God the Creator include the affirmation that there is only one God who creates all that is, that God is distinct from that which God creates, that God creates in an orderly fashion, that God calls all that God creates “good,” and that God blesses creatures, including human beings, and calls them to bring forth other creatures. God’s purpose in creating is to bring forth new life and divine blessing. The biblical witness stresses that human beings are special to God since they are created in God’s “image and likeness” (Gen. 1.26-27), in the image of God. While biblical scholars and theologians have long disagreed among themselves about the meaning of this affirmation, many conclude that this teaching implies that there is a fundamental unity of all human beings and that human beings are in some ways different from all other creatures. For “us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor. 8.6). God is adored as the “Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name” (Eph. 3.14). Certainly, human beings are temporal, contingent, finite creatures like all other creatures. We are embedded in creation. We are similar to other creatures. According to Gen. 1.24-31, humans have something in common with the other animals of the earth. Indeed, according to Gen. 2.7, the human (the Hebrew word ādām = “human being”) is closely related to the earth (ʾădāmâ = “ground,” “land”). According to this same text, the human comes from the ground and has the breath of life breathed into it by God. God creates life from the dust. Human beings are thus a spiritual-bodily totality, a holistic creature (not a dualistic entity whose material “body” is devalued in favor of some immaterial “soul”). God is the creator of the whole person, whose body-soul wholeness is closely related to the rest of God’s material creation. Yet humans are also called to reflect God’s creative freedom, love, and responsibility within God’s creation. Humans are thus distinct from other creatures in some important ways. Humans are unique among all the creatures that God has created.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

We have a freedom (a “response-ability”) and a responsibility in relation to the rest of God’s creation. Thus, humans have free “dominion” over the rest of creation that is both a condition of their moral responsibility toward the rest of creation but also a threat to the rest of creation because they can misuse that freedom in selfish, destructive, sinful ways. While human beings are called to care for and serve God’s creation, they tragically abuse and destroy creation in ways that are harmful to themselves, to other creatures, and to the planet as a whole. The revelation of God the Creator includes this awareness that human beings are responsible to God and to the rest of creation. There is thus a second theme in the self-revelation of God, and this is the revelation of the divine law. Here God is known not only as the ground of the universe’s rational order but as the cause and basis of the world’s moral order. The self-revelation of God in the law is always a message of “You shall not…” or “You shall….” While it is sensed intuitively already by individuals in their conscience and within the specific customs, rules, and laws that arise from the way the world is, and which shape and order human interaction within and across cultures—wherever there are human beings, there are laws and rules—the Creator’s law is revealed in the commands that are given in the Scriptures, most especially the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20). These laws sharpen one’s sense of right and wrong, of good and bad, of justice and injustice, of truth and falsehood, and they give a distinct form to what is often called “the Golden Rule.” This rule is found in one form or another in all of the major religions and in perhaps every culture, for example, in the common command or custom to treat strangers well: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Mt. 7.12). The intention of the divine law, at least in this respect, is to preserve and protect the human community (“one’s neighbors”) and to create the limits within which human beings can care for one another and flourish. This revelation of the divine law, which governs all aspects of human life and every relation to God and to others, also includes as a third theme the revelation of humans as sinners, that is, the revelation that human beings cannot keep the law as God intends. The prophets and the apostles proclaim that the divine law confronts human beings in every aspect of their lives and yet reveals that they are unable to obey this law. They always fall short of the ideal. Human history is thus revealed to be, at its core, a tragic history. Human efforts at creating their own immortality inevitably end in failure. As Ernest Becker (1924–74) has highlighted through his social analysis of human beings, the most basic human behavior is self-justification that amounts to attempting to make oneself into an immortal god.15 There are no actual atheists, for everyone in effect tries to act as if they are God, or they treat something or someone as “God” that is not God. This conclusion accords with the basic sin that is revealed

15. Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death (New York: Free Press, 1975), 165–70.

419

420

Fundamental Theology

by the law: the sin of refusing to trust in the true and living God (unbelief) and of making a “god” of oneself. Because of this self-focused idolatry, human moral accomplishments are always partial, limited, and ambiguous. True social justice remains elusive, even as standards of justice are continually violated. In all of these ways, the divine law condemns human beings as moral failures. And the one who is guilty of failing the law in even one point, Scripture teaches, is guilty of failing the law at every point (James 2.10). The apostle Paul thus stated: “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3.20). While the law is a wonderful gift of the Creator to human beings, it is not a gift that can ultimately help them before God, since it continually points to the sinful condition and actions of every human being. Even the apostle Paul had to acknowledge that “nothing good” dwelt within him: “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do” (Rom. 7.18-19). He was not here speaking only for himself; he was attempting to articulate a truth about all human beings.16 The revelation of the divine law is thus the revelation of human beings as sinners before God. Human beings may know what is right because of God’s general revelation of the law in their conscience and within their human society, but they inevitably do what is contrary to this law. Under the revelation of the divine law, human beings stand condemned:

They are shown to lack true fear and trust in God their Creator; they are self-centered; they attempt to control, manipulate, and rule over others for their own advantage; they are born into sinful, guilty communities (e.g., family, society) that unavoidably shape and condition them toward sin and evil; they fail to act in true love toward others; they constantly try to justify themselves before others; and their own consciences frequently accuse and condemn them as guilty for their decisions and actions—and for their failures to act rightly.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

16. The so-called “new perspective” on Paul, linked with such scholars as Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright, does not do justice to Paul’s teaching about human sin as a radical hostility and rebellion against God. The “new perspective” downplays the centrality of justification by faith in Christ and re-visions Paul’s central concern to be about the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s original covenant with the Jews. This shift thus minimizes the reality of human sin and its universality among all human beings, Jew and Gentile alike. When one downplays the reality of sin, one minimizes the need for a crucified Christ before the divine judgment of God. For a critical assessment of this “new perspective” on Paul, see the essays in The New Perspective on Paul, ed. David C. Ratke (Minneapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2012).

Key Themes in Special Revelation

Human beings should do what is good, but they inevitably do what is sinful and even evil. Various classical and modern dragnets let no one escape. The classic seven “cardinal” sins (also called “capital sins” or “deadly sins”) are a temptation to everyone: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, anger, envy, and pride. The reality of sin also frustrates and distorts the revelation of God. This occurs both as a result of human ignorance or blindness to the Creator’s power and will and as a result of human defiance of God’s will in law and gospel. Because of the reality of sin and the human sense and experience of sin, the reality of God can be a terrifying experience. The prophets and the apostles refer to this experience of God’s judgment as the wrath of God or the anger of God, which serves as a fourth theme in the self-revelation of God (cf. Zeph. 1.14-15, which refers to “the coming day of the LORD” as “the day of wrath” [dies irae]). Here the revelation of God’s law is bound to be also the revelation of God’s wrath or anger. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of human beings who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (Rom. 1.18). Chief among the suppressions of the truth is replacing one’s trust in the true and living God with trust in an idol of one’s own making. Christian theology acknowledges that the root of all sin is the failure to keep the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods” (Exod. 20.3). While many modern theologians, not least Schleiermacher and Ritschl, have rejected the biblical statements about God’s wrath as anthropomorphic and outmoded, this rejection does not accord with either the teaching of the prophets and the apostles or the actual experience of human beings in relation to the hiddenness of God. God’s wrath is no more anthropomorphic than God’s love is anthropomorphic. An abiding challenge of contemporary Christian theology is to clarify the fullness of meaning attached to the biblical language about the wrath of God in relation to the nature of sin and the reality of death (God’s anger at sin is not solely an OT concept; there are nearly forty occurrences of the expression “wrath of God” in the NT)— while at the same time giving priority to the biblical affirmation that “God is love” (1 Jn 4.8). The revelation of the wrath of God illumines the darkness of God’s judgment against sin and human sinners (Rom. 2.5 et passim). Whereas sinful human beings want God to act according to human understandings of law and justice and to do to and for them what they think is right and reasonable, the revelation of the wrath of God is the illumination of God’s judgment against human beings in their conscience, in the divine law, and in their death. It is a revelation that leads humans to fear, dread, and even hate God. Because of the reality of sin and the human experience of the hiddenness of God, there is enmity between God and human beings (Rom. 8.7), an enmity that only God can bring to an end. In a basic way, then, humans can experience the hiddenness of God as a divine judgment apart from Christ and faith in him. As Lutheran theologian Robert Bertram (1921–2003) and others have rightly argued, it is not that the hidden God is merely “unknown” beyond God’s revelation, or that the hidden God needs only to be

421

422

Fundamental Theology

identified with the Word of God incarnate in Christ. Rather, as we have already noted in Chapter 7, the hiddenness of God is a mysterious threat to our being, a deeply troubling awareness of God’s holiness and of our alienation from God. God’s “alien” work is to criticize us unto death. God hidden in God’s majesty works life and death and all in all. Conversely, the gospel promise is that Christ has so identified with unbelievers “that he not only assails their illusions about God but agreeably confirms their own worst fears.”17 It truly is God, regardless of whatever else, from whom they need to be saved, and saved by being replaced—also in their noblest parts, their “rationality”—by a whole new, plausible identity. Mercifully, this occurs as Godself in Christ acquires a new, unprecedented identity of his own, not just as “prevenient” or even “gracious” but now, for the first time and forever after, as one of them, relieving them of that onus and reidentifying them as junior deities with a “prevenience” of their own, faith, to which God in turn is now the pleased respondent. It is their faith in this promise of Jesus which renders them plausible—I mean, literally, pleasing—yet only if this new, selfreidentifying God, to the very core of the Trinity, has, in historical fact, become true.18

Contrary to theologies that see a continuity between divine grace and human nature, as in the optimistic vision of Aquinas, wherein “grace does not destroy nature but perfects it,” Protestant theology maintains a discontinuity between sinful human beings, who lack the capacity to love God, and divine grace, which is entirely a gift of God’s own self-giving.19 For many (but not all) Protestants, human beings come into the world lacking true fear and trust in God.20 They are ignorant of God’s intention toward them and in their actual thoughts and lives in effect manifest contempt for God and the divine will. There is no sin that is not simultaneously enmity against God. The principal sin of human beings is their inclination to create idols after their own image and desires. Humans are inveterate idol makers. They do not fulfill the will of God. They lack the capacity to do so, and yet human beings should do the will of God and are held accountable when they do not do it. God demands what no sinful human being can do, and God executes the divine wrath against them because they fail to do what they should do. “You have no excuse, whoever you are” (Rom. 17. Robert Bertram, “Review Symposium on Revelation and Theology: The Gospel as Narrated Promise by Ronald Thiemann,” Dialog 26 (Winter 1987): 70. Thiemann (1946–2012), whose book reflects Barth’s revelationist theology, had been Bertram’s student at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Bertram’s own approach, however, was deeply influenced by that of Barth’s principal theological opponent, Werner Elert. Thiemann’s doctoral dissertation at Yale analyzes the conflict between Barth and Elert, and ultimately favors Barth’s basic position. 18. Bertram, “Review Symposium,” 70–1. 19. Aquinas, ST, I.1.8, ad. 2, et passim. 20. Augsburg Confession, Art. II (on original sin), BC, 36–9. By contrast, Baptists and Methodists do not teach that infants come into the world adversely affected by sin or lacking true trust in God.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

2.1; cf. Rom. 1.20b). The only hope for human beings in face of the revelation of the wrath of God is to fear it and flee from it. But flee to where? Under the revelation of the law and wrath of God, there is no escape for human beings, for wrath is revealed against the whole world (Rom. 3.6). According to Luther: Admittedly, it is utterly repugnant to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn human beings, as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast, eternal torments of his wretched creatures, even though preachers praise the greatness of God’s mercy and loving kindness. It seems that for this reason one must regard God as unfair and cruel, as unbearable. This repugnant thought has caused many distinguished people of all times to go to pieces. And who would not be offended? I myself was offended more than once, and brought to the very depth and abyss of despair, so that I wished I had never been created—until I learned how salutary this despair is, and how close it is to grace.21

Without the gospel, the human experience of the hidden God ends in despair, dread, and even the hatred of God.

Christ the Redeemer While human beings cannot attain to God, and every effort on their part to do so ends in disaster and despair, God is confessed by Christians to have condescended to the level of human beings and to have unveiled God to them. God can bridge the chasm that exists between finite, sinful creatures and the infinite holiness of the transcendent God. The Holy One “who dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6.16) is thus approachable through the promising word of mercy, the Word that became incarnate in Jesus. Here, in Jesus Christ, the Holy One is pure goodness and compassion. Here, in Jesus Christ, God’s infinite majesty has condescended to humankind in love, has become familiar, intimate and, more to the point, merciful and forgiving. Here, in Jesus Christ, is God’s great “nevertheless,” God’s promise of forgiveness for the ungodly, God’s promise of eternal life for mortal sinners, God’s promise of salvation for the condemned and the doomed. Such a promise makes life good, gives it ultimate meaning, provides a context for the responsible use of freedom, and renews one’s hope for the future. The sad reality of sin, evil, divine wrath, and death would spell ultimate disaster except that the prophets and the apostles also proclaim that God’s fundamental, ultimate intention toward creation and the human community within creation is one of blessing and love, and not curse and wrath. While humanity cannot bring an end 21. Luther, The Bondage of the Will (1526), LW1, 33.190 (trans. modified; cf. Stephen Paulson, Lutheran Theology [New York: T&T Clark, 2011], 83 [original: WA, 18.719]).

423

424

Fundamental Theology

to their sinful condition, the gospel states that God promises to bring this condition to an end and has brought it to an end in Christ. The NT witness is that God’s wrath and curse against sinners have been overcome by God’s merciful love and grace. This outcome is the apostolic interpretation of the foundational promise to Abram in Genesis 12 (echoed in the Messianic promise of Ps. 72.17b), namely, that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abram and his family, a promise that is understood by Christians to have been fulfilled in the coming of Jesus, through whom God’s ultimate blessing is given to the world. God’s final revelation in Jesus thus presupposes a revelatory history that precedes and prepares for it and a universal focus that is aimed at all people. God’s overall intention is to bless humankind in Jesus the Christ and to bring all people into the fullness of God’s grace, love, and truth (1 Tim. 2.4). This blessing has occurred in Jesus as the climax of a long process of revelation in the events of Israelite and Jewish history, as this was interpreted by the Hebrew prophets and further interpreted by the postresurrection apostles. Theological reflection on the person of Jesus, which is called christology, is grounded in his words and deeds, his suffering and death, and his resurrection and exaltation. These events are normatively interpreted in the apostolic and prophetic Scriptures. We have already noted in Chapter 10 the earliest christological titles that were used to honor and adore Jesus. Among these titles, those of Christ, Son of God, Lord, and Savior are preeminent, but other titles were also used in the early Christian community. Peter’s confession—his response to the question of Jesus, “Who do you say that I am?”—is central: “You are the Christ” (Mk 8.29). That confession is expanded in Matthew’s account: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16.16). The whole purpose of the Gospel of John is that the hearer/reader “may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (Jn 20.31). Other words that are rooted in the OT witness also were used in the early church to refer to Jesus, such as image of God (Col. 1.15; cf. Heb. 1.3), Word of God (Jn 1.1-14), the last Adam (1 Cor. 15.45). All of these terms bear witness in their respective ways to Jesus’ unique relationship to God and his unique place within the people of God (as vicarious representative of the people). Some titles bear witness to the uniqueness of his being from God (Jn 1; Heb. 1; Col. 1), while other titles stress his identity with human beings (e.g., the last Adam, the Lamb of God). The orthodox Christian faith confesses Jesus to be the incarnate Word of God, the only begotten Son of God, who is the Savior of the world. God’s salvation for the world has come in and through Jesus the Christ, “God’s only Son, our Lord.”22 He is the one Redeemer who has brought salvation for all. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5.20 22. The Apostles’ Creed (BC, 21). Christians believe “in one God, the Father almighty … and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages” (The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, BC, 22–3).

Key Themes in Special Revelation

[paraphrased]). Indeed, “In [Christ] the whole fullness of the Deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2.9). The redemption that Jesus accomplished is God’s redemption. The NT texts stress a fundamental unity of the Father and the Son in this one redemptive mission, and they also affirm a fundamental unity of the Father and the Son who together accomplish this action of salvation. This emphasis on the unity of the Father and the Son is especially present in the Johannine Scriptures, but it is also found in the letters of Paul and in 1 Peter. “I and the Father are one,” says Christ in the Gospel of John (10.30). The basis for this unity of Jesus with God is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and his exaltation “to the right hand of God.” Over time, especially in the context of Christian worship, theological understandings of the person of Jesus underwent clarification and refinement, and some views were rejected. For example, some Jewish followers of Jesus (“the Ebionites” = “the poor ones”) saw him to be merely human, the son of Joseph and Mary, and in no way divine. Similarly, Paul of Samosata, who lived in the third century, taught that the man Jesus became “the Son of God” only after his baptism, at which time the Logos took up his dwelling in him through the Spirit. This kind of “adoptionist” teaching was criticized for its “low” view of Christ in relation to God, in which Jesus was seen to be infused with the divine Spirit but inferior or subordinate to the Father. The majority of other Christians defended Christ’s divinity alongside his humanity. One of the earliest Christian sermons begins with this statement: “Brothers and sisters, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of God, as judge of the living and the dead. And we ought not to belittle the one who is our salvation, for when we belittle him, we also hope to receive but little.”23 Already in the NT texts, one finds statements that affirm Jesus’ divine nature: Jn 1.1-18, 20.28; Heb. 1.1-9; Rom. 9.5; Tit. 2.13; 2 Pet. 1.1; and 1 Jn 5.20. On the basis of Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, the early Christian church came to understand that the Son of God did not originate in Jesus’ birth from Mary, “but that in Jesus’ birth God’s eternal Son became a human being and in his baptism was proclaimed by God to be his Son, which he already was from his eternal origin.”24 As the eternal Word of God, the Logos that became incarnate in Jesus had already been present and active in the old covenant (cf. Jn 8.58). This Logos was the means by which the universe came into being (1 Cor. 8.6; Col. 1.16; Jn 1.3; Heb. 1.10) and is sustained (Col. 1.17). The Logos, who is also called the Son, is eternal like the Father, and his procession from the Father came to be understood as an eternal event, not a temporal one. The Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. While they are distinct from one another, they are not divided or separated. Most significantly, Christ is worshiped and adored together with God the Father and 23. Second Clement, 1.1–2, The Apostolic Fathers, 3rd edn, ed. and trans. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 139. 24. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, ESW, 2/2.792.

425

426

Fundamental Theology

the Holy Spirit. Throughout the NT, one finds many doxologies or other statements of praise that are directed toward Christ (e.g., Rom. 9.5; 2 Tim. 4.18; 2 Pet. 3.18; cf. Acts 7.59-60; 1 Cor. 16.22; 2 Cor. 12.8). Christ Jesus was worshiped because his followers believed he was worthy of their praise. If Jesus were only a creature, even the best one of all, he should not be so honored and adored, and yet he was and is worshiped as God. In the fourth century, however, a Christian priest by the name of Arius (d. c. 336) taught that the Logos was not eternal like the Father. While Arius held that Jesus had a preexistence, his preexistence was still as a creature, the first creature that God created, who is superior to all other creatures. After much theological debate and careful nuancing, the theologians and church leaders who met at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in AD 325 adopted a creed in which the position of Arius was rejected. This Nicene Creed, which was amplified and refined at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in AD 381, confesses that “the Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages” is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one Being with the Father, through whom all things were made. For us humans and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became a human being.”25 The key phrases here are “God from God” and “of one Being with the Father” (which can also be rendered as “of the same being” or “of one substance with”). The key point over against Arius’s position is that the Son of God is not a creature, not made or created, but “only begotten” from the Father from all eternity. Why is this teaching important? According to Athanasius and other orthodox theologians of that period, Christians do not worship a creature, and yet they worship Christ, and rightfully so, for a creature cannot save other creatures. Only the one who had created the universe could save human beings and the rest of creation, and to be able to do either or both “he himself had to be divine and not a creature.”26 In the course of the early history of Christian thought, other understandings of the person of Christ were excluded as contrary to the gospel. We noted earlier the rejection of Ebionitism, the view that Jesus is merely a human being. But the opposite view was also rejected. As the full divinity of the Son became more and more accepted, his full and complete humanity became more questionable. Already in some NT Scriptures there is the recognition that some early followers of Jesus had denied his full humanity (cf. 1 Jn 4.2-3). These followers held that the Son of God only “seemed” to have become human, had only seemed to have been crucified, but that in reality he had never suffered at all. This position is usually called “Docetism” (from the Greek word “to seem like”), since the Son of God only “seemed” to have

25. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, BC, 22–3. 26. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 1.203.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

taken on the appearance of a human (or, in one variation, that the Son left the body of the human Jesus prior to his suffering and death). Gnostic writers in the early centuries of Christianity took this position, or some variation of it, seeking to protect God from the frailty and humiliation of an actual human body. But more mainstream Christians also downplayed the humanity of Jesus, especially his suffering and death, when they taught that the Son of God assumed a human body and a soul but not a human mind.27 Over against Docetism and Gnosticism, orthodox and catholic Christians confessed the full humanity of Jesus, including his possession of a fully human mind and body. While he himself was without sin and never committed a sin, he made himself a sinner by freely taking upon himself the sins of the world on the cross. The further course of the development of christology is a long and complicated path, which we will not retrace here. Suffice it to say, though, that some thinkers still tended to stress Christ’s divinity to the near exclusion of his humanity. Other thinkers have taken Jesus’ humanity for granted and have had difficulty affirming his deity. Many people across the centuries have had trouble understanding how two differing “natures,” the divine and the human, could reside in the one person of Jesus, especially given that this Jesus suffered and died on a cross. While no theologian or church council can provide a full explanation for the mystery of the incarnation and the suffering of Christ, the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) adopted a formula, the so-called Chalcedonian Definition, which is usually regarded as having established important boundaries for an orthodox understanding of the person of Jesus Christ: So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly human, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity; and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the

27. Apollinarius (c. 310–c. 390) was a strong defender of Nicene orthodoxy about the eternal Logos, but he denied the presence of a human mind in Christ. Against this view, later theologians maintained that if Christ did not possess a human mind then he has not redeemed the whole of human nature, only its physical elements.

427

428

Fundamental Theology

beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as [the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed] of the fathers handed it down to us.28

This statement thus affirms that Christ is one person in two natures, one nature being divine and one nature being human, and that these two natures are without confusion or change and without division or separation. As such, the Chalcedonian Definition sought to strike a balance between two broad traditions of christological reflection, one that tended to focus more on the transcendent deity of Christ and the unity of his person as the divine Logos and the other that tended to focus more on the flesh-andblood humanity of Christ. Rejected by the Definition were positions that in one way or another undermined the full humanity of Christ or had difficulty maintaining the unity of the divine Logos and the human rational soul in the one person of Christ.29 Since the fifth century, and especially since the rise of modern ways of thinking about human beings, the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ’s two natures has been questioned and criticized. Some theologians have denied the deity of Jesus, or have viewed the development in his life as one of becoming more and more divine. Others have tried to get beyond the traditional “two-natures” teaching by developing a kind of “functional” christology, in which Jesus possessed what he needed to be the means by which God accomplished his divine redemption but no more. For Schleiermacher, Jesus was a fully human person who nevertheless possessed an “absolutely potent God-consciousness,” the constancy of which allowed him to be fully dependent upon God throughout his life and thus serve as the means of salvation.30 In Schleiermacher’s view, Jesus’ “divinity” was thus merely God’s action at work through the human Jesus. Within the long quest for the historical Jesus, other scholars have also tried to move beyond the orthodox teaching about “the two natures” of Christ, usually by presupposing that Jesus was merely a human being, albeit a very special one in whom God was actively present and who has garnered a lot of attention. 28. Tanner, 1.86 (trans. modified; cf. Denzinger, 301–2). 29. Nestorius (b. after 351; d. after 451), an Antiochene monk who was the patriarch of Constantinople between his appointment in 428 and his deposition in 431, held that there are two separate persons in the incarnate Christ, the one divine and the other human. Nestorius championed the full humanity of Jesus, but he encountered contradictions with his understanding of the unity of the eternal Son of God and the man Jesus. His views were condemned at various councils, including the one at Chalcedon. Eutyches (c. 378–454), who was an archimandrite of a large monastery in Constantinople, opposed Nestorianism but was accused of maintaining an opposite position, namely, of confounding the two natures of Christ (often called “monophysitism,” i.e., in the person of Christ there is but a single, divine nature after the incarnation, not two natures [divine and human], as confessed at Chalcedon). Eutyches’ christology was explicitly condemned by Pope Leo I, in his letter (“Tome”) to Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, and by the Council of Chalcedon. See Tanner, 1.77–87; and Denzinger, 290–5; and 300–2. 30. Schleiermacher, CF, 2.565–80.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

Still another modern approach toward understanding the person of Christ has been articulated by a few nineteenth-century German and British theologians who stressed the “self-emptying” (kenosis) of the divinity of the Son in the incarnation. This understanding of christology takes its starting point from a statement in Paul’s quotation of an early Christian hymn, in Phil. 2.6-11: “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.” According to this model of christology, when the Logos became incarnate in Jesus, the Logos divested himself of all the divine attributes that were incompatible with human nature, for example, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and even eternity. The so-called kenosis theologians, including von Hofmann, differed among themselves as to which divine attributes were relinquished or “emptied,” but all these theologians affirmed that Jesus lived a fully and truly human life. Most of these theologians also held that when Christ was resurrected and exalted, all the divine attributes that he had given up were once again bestowed upon him.31 While this theory has some strengths—for example, taking the human development of Jesus seriously—it has not gained wide acceptance because of its inability to make clear how the “self-emptying” of the divine attributes would not imply a change to the essential unity of the triune God, a key element in orthodox thinking about the nature of God. Despite the challenges that face the traditional two-natures teaching about Jesus—not the least of which is its use of ancient abstract philosophical concepts, as well as its tendency toward Docetism and its difficulties in maintaining the unity of Jesus as a real human being—it still presents a viable starting point today for confessing and adoring the mystery of the incarnation of the divine Logos and the redemption he has accomplished. Starting with Barth and Brunner and continuing with Schlink, Rahner, and other twentieth-century theologians, statements from the Chalcedonian Definition have been reinterpreted anew with fresh vigor and insight. Following Schlink’s analysis, it is important to underscore that the Chalcedonian Definition is not really a creed but a doctrinal statement about the original NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed, whose sole purpose is to serve doxology, the praise of the triune God. The antitheses in the Definition about Jesus as “God” and “a human being” bear witness to the mystery of the person of Jesus and to the redemption he has accomplished. Luther’s explanation to the second article of the Apostles’ Creed articulates the unity of these antitheses about as well as can be stated in a brief faithstatement: “I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also a true human being, born of the Virgin Mary, is my LORD, who redeemed 31. For analysis and critique of von Hofmann’s kenotic christology, see Becker, The Self-Giving God and Salvation History, 173–203. For analysis of other kenotic theologians, see C. Stephen Evans, ed., Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

429

430

Fundamental Theology

me, a lost and condemned human being”32 Christology thus entails both statements about the words and deeds of the historical Jesus and statements about his being and essence that arise from the apostolic witness to those words and deeds, that is, about who he is confessed to be as the Christ, the Son of God, the Lord, the Savior, etc. Of course, the metaphysical concepts that were used in early Christian doxologies, hymns, and creeds about Christ’s “being” and “essence” require careful interpretation, especially when their meaning is ultimately dependent upon how they were used long ago to confess the apostolic teaching about the crucified and risen Christ, who is “truly God and truly a human being.”33 Certainly, Christians have spoken differently about the person of Jesus, and they have understood his saving work in different ways, yet all orthodox Christians believe that he is God’s decisive act of salvation for the whole world, that in Jesus the gracious purposes in the mind of God are disclosed, and that in Jesus the new creation has dawned. “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1.17). Thus, a further theme in the special revelation of God is the key theme, namely, the self-revelation of God in Jesus as merciful and forgiving love, a theme that is also articulated in the OT witness (see, e.g., Exod. 34.6-7): Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 Jn 4.7-10)

The final sentence in this passage is one of the clearest articulations of the gospel, the good news of God’s amazing grace and salvation, which is the basis and central focus of Christian faith and thus the central issue in the subject of Christian theology. Thinking about this salvation is called soteriology, a term that is based on the Greek word for savior. According to mainstream Roman Catholic and Lutheran teaching, this gospel: (a) was proclaimed by witnesses—apostles and others in the early Church; (b) was recorded in the NT Scriptures, which have a “normative role for the entire later tradition of the Church”; (c) has been made living in the hearts of believers by the Holy Spirit; (d) has been reflected in the “rule of faith” (regula fidei) and in the forms and exercise of church leadership; (e) has been served by ministers.34

While Roman Catholics and Lutherans are not yet in complete agreement regarding the actual content of the gospel (e.g., Roman Catholics reject the idea that justification 32. Luther, Small Catechism (the Creed), BC, 355. 33. The Chalcedonian Definition (Denzinger, 301; cf. Tanner, 1.86). 34. Paul C. Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, eds., Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VI, “Common Statement” (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 15.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

is by faith alone and insist that it must include the grace-powered transformation of the individual believer), they agree that it does have a content, that this content is conveyed through the early witnesses to Jesus and summarized in what will come to be called “the rule of faith” (regula fidei), and that the abiding aspects of this content must be developed in the present situation. Although this apostolic witness cannot be expressed in a single formula nor stated in its entirety in one single moment, it can be summarized under what the apostle Paul calls “the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2.5, 14). The gospel or “good message” is qualitatively different from all other messages and points directly to the “good” proclamation of the apostles about Jesus. As we will note further on, Lutheran theologians stress that the promise of the gospel is properly received solely by faith alone, although they also insist that such faith is active in works of merciful, loving service to others. One must immediately acknowledge at this point that the apostolic and prophetic writings of the Scriptures articulate the gospel in various ways. Perhaps the principal articulation is the announcement of the divine forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life through the death and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15.1-8). Human sinners, who cannot end their sinful condition or raise themselves from the dead, are thereby revealed in the gospel to be forgiven sinners, restored and renewed children of God in and through Christ. Their own death is thus revealed to be a judgment from God, but one that God has overcome in the resurrection of Jesus and through baptism, which connects individual people to the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6.1-11). This is a basic promise within the apostolic witness to the actual historical event in and through the person of Jesus, which includes Jesus’ own gospel words of address (e.g., Mk 1.14), which are themselves presented within the narrative Gospels as God’s address to those hearing it. The apostolic gospel about Jesus Christ is articulated in other ways, too, even by the same apostle. Paul refers to the gospel as God’s “word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5.19). This is the promise that in Christ all are reconciled to God and brought into a fundamental unity. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5.19). The apostle thus enjoins his hearers: “Be reconciled to God!” (2 Cor. 5.20). The letter to the Ephesians articulates this reconciliation in terms of “unity” between God and all things: “With all wisdom and insight God has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1.8b-10). Thus, the gospel calls attention to an historical event, inclusive of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, in which God has acted to reconcile the cosmos to God. For Christian theology, the wrath of God and the love of God are intimately connected to the death of Jesus on the cross, where they meet in the most profound and ultimately inexplicable way. Human beings know the love of God precisely because God “laid down his life for us” (1 Jn 3.16) and removed the divine wrath

431

432

Fundamental Theology

against them. In some way God has overcome this wrath against sinners and sin by “crossing it out” in and through the crucified Christ. “For our sake God made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5.21). In other words, God damns and curses Jesus, making him “the greatest sinner” who has ever lived, even though he himself is called righteous and is said to have committed no sin.35 God has placed upon him the sins of the entire world, thus making him into the ultimate scapegoat (cf. Lev. 16.21), and in return God has given the goodness and perfection (“righteousness”) of Christ as a free gift to sinners.36 There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8.1-4)

This teaching about “the substitutionary atonement,” in which Jesus is punished in place of the rest of humanity, has received significant criticism in recent decades, especially among feminist theologians and others who find the notion of God venting his wrath on Jesus to be akin to child abuse.37 The implication of the idea of substitutionary atonement is that God’s justice and wrath must be propitiated, that Christ has satisfied the just demands of God’s judgment against humankind by taking their deserved punishment upon himself. Other questions are raised as well: How can justice be said to be brought about if the ones who are guilty are let off the hook and an innocent one suffers for them in their place? Does God the Father not come across as a morally repugnant deity, who vents his righteous anger on the hapless victim of his Son? While these and similar criticisms need to be considered, they lose their force when one considers the two natures of the person of Jesus Christ, at least according to orthodox christological teaching. The death of Jesus on the cross is not the death of “a third party” (beyond God and human beings) but the “self-substitution” of God himself.38 The incarnate Logos freely offered himself up out of love for all sinners, in accord with his own will and purpose. Jesus “gave himself up for our sins” (Gal. 1.4). 35. Luther, “First Sermon at the Baptism of Bernard of Anhalt” (1540), LW2, 58.45. 36. For the “joyous exchange” (“fröhlicher Wechsel”) in Luther’s theology, whereby our sins are predicated to Christ and his righteousness is predicated to us, see Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, LW1, 31.333–77, esp. 351–2. 37. This point is made, for example, by Rita Nakashima Brock, “And a Little Child Will Lead Us: Christology and Child Abuse,” in Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, ed. Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn (New York: Pilgrim, 1989), 51–4. 38. This same point is made by Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015), 24–5.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

“For you the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor. 8.9). So Christ is not merely a passive victim but an active agent in God’s will of salvation. He entered our sinful, guilty, mortal condition to bring us to participate in his righteous, eternal life. To paraphrase Irenaeus’ understanding of the atonement: Christ became what we are so that we might become what he is.39 In addition, critics of the substitutionary model of the atonement tend to downplay humans’ “sins,” “disobediences,” and “transgressions” (and focus more upon the liberation of enslaved human beings from worldly powers and principalities). Yet Paul repeatedly stressed that the gospel about Christ’s death entails the forgiveness of sins, that is, forgiving individual violations of the divine will (e.g., 1 Cor. 15.3, 17; Gal. 1.4, 3.19; Rom. 3.25, 4.7, et passim). “Sins, transgressions, individual infractions of the divine will” are “integral to Paul’s account of humanity’s plight.”40 Because Christ died as a consequence for our sins, we will not. Through his death on the cross, Christ has dealt decisively with our sins and death. Out of love for us (Rom. 5.8), he bore our sins away in our place so that we will not have to bear them when we face the judgment of God. He died our death so that we will not perish. (Christians must still physically die, of course, which Paul compares to “falling asleep,” but they trust that Christ’s death has saved them from perishing under the judgment of God.) “Because [Jesus] is Israel’s representative, he can be the appropriate substitute, can take on himself the curse of others, so they do not bear it any more.”41 Still other ways in which the apostles articulated the gospel include the following: • the salvation that will take place on the day of God’s judgment (1 Cor. 5.5; 2 Cor. 5.10), the salvation from God’s coming wrath (Rom. 5.9; 1 Cor. 3.15 et passim); • the salvation that is taking place now as one accepts and trusts the message of the gospel (“for by grace you have been saved by faith” [Eph. 2.8]); • the message of God’s grace and love for sinners and outcasts (especially through the words and actions of Jesus during his earthly ministry; see, e.g., Lk. 19); • the atonement that has occurred in and through the person of Christ (Eph. 2.14-16); • the expiation of sin that has occurred through his sacrifice on the cross (1 Jn 2.2); • the justification of the sinner before the court of God’s judgment (Gal. 2.15-21; Rom. 4.5, 5.1); • the redemption of sinners (Gal. 3.3); • the acceptance and adoption of sinners as God’s children (Gal. 3.26-28, 4.6-7); 39. Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, preface (ANF, 1.526). 40. Gathercole, Defending Substitution, 54. 41. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London: SPCK, 2013), 865.

433

434

Fundamental Theology

• the triumph of Christ over the powers of sin, death, and evil (1 Cor. 15.55-56; 1 Jn 3.8); • the hope of immortality that has dawned through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (2 Cor. 5.1-10); • the participation of the human being in the new mode of being of the risen Christ (Rom. 6.4-11; 1 Pet. 1.3; 2 Cor. 5.17; Col. 3.3; Eph. 4.24); • the transformation into the image of Christ, who is the image of God (1 Cor. 15.49; 2 Cor. 3.18; Rom. 8.23; 2 Cor. 4.4; Col. 1.15; 1 Jn 3.2).42 The gospel promise asserts that those who are baptized into Christ become “new creatures,” no longer slaves to sin and enemies of God but free children and heirs of God, dead to sin and alive to God. In this changed existence, which the apostles call “regeneration” or “new birth” (see Tit. 3; Jn 3.1-17), the fruit of the Spirit replace the works of the sinful self (Gal. 5.21-26). The gospel proclaims that God the Holy Spirit sanctifies sinners, and it exhorts them to live in the new life of obedience to God’s will that God has given to them by his grace. Through the working of the Holy Spirit, believers in Christ receive his glory, righteousness, and life. They are called to discern what is the will of God—“what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12.2). Lutheran Christians especially emphasize the gospel as always a promise connected with the suffering and cross of Jesus Christ, which are proclaimed in the light of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. For many Protestants, all genuine Christian theological knowledge is given in the suffering and death of Christ, where God is hidden. Here, in the crucified and risen Christ, God attacks sin and accomplishes salvation. The word about this cross is “foolishness to those who are perishing,” “but to those who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1.18). The reality of God, of God’s grace, of salvation, of the Christian life, of the church itself—all these remain hidden in the wisdom of the cross. The theology of the cross centers on the death cry of Jesus (Mk 15.34), its attack on human pretensions, and on the resurrection of Christ from the dead as the hope of the human being’s own death and resurrection, 42. The Eastern Christian teaching about the “deification” of the human being needs to be understood and appreciated in this context. While some Western Christians have raised objections against this Eastern teaching (e.g., it seems to blur the distinction between God and creatures), Eastern theologians do not teach that humans will become identical to God or will merge into the Godhead. Rather, just as Jesus, the only Son who is one with the Father “by nature,” is distinct from believers, who are “adopted” as children of God, so God is distinct from deified humans. While the latter receive immortality as a gift from God, who is without origin, they remain creatures in their deified state. Some Lutheran theologians have thus accepted the doctrine of deification as a legitimate biblical teaching: “Deification takes place by the indwelling of Christ in believers through the Holy Spirit and is completed in the resurrection from the dead. … [S]‌ince Christ is one with God the Father, and since God has entered into humanity through the Son, life in Christ is at the same time life in God. Deification happens when believers are taken into the eternal trinitarian life of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, ESW, 2/2.666).

Key Themes in Special Revelation

entirely of God’s doing, which then make a radical difference for one’s standing before God in the present. A “theologian of the cross” comes to know God through suffering, trials, pangs of conscience, the troubles and joys of daily life, being put to death daily with Christ, and being raised anew in the promise of God’s forgiveness and love. Contrary to “a theologian of glory,” who seeks to know God by seeing through “the created world and the acts of God to the invisible realm of glory beyond it” and by “willing and working” one’s way upward on “this glory road,” a theologian of the cross will look for God in the story of Jesus’ cross, to understand all things, including the realities of oneself before God, “through suffering and cross.”43 Even Moses, who desired to see God’s glory (Exod. 33.18-23), was prohibited, since no one can see God’s face and live. Moses was allowed only to see God’s “backside,” his posterior. In the NT witness of the apostles, it is the suffering and crucified Jesus “that takes the place of God’s backside.”44 “Because [humans] misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn wisdom concerning invisible things by means of the wisdom concerning visible things, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering.”45 The “visible things” of God are God’s incarnation in Jesus, God’s weakness, lowliness, humility, and foolishness. These are to be contrasted with “the glory” of the invisible God and with “the theologians of glory” who insist that one can approach this divine glory on the basis of human action (“works” and “human wisdom”) and be justified before God by what one does in one’s life.46 With the apostle Paul, the theologian of the cross believes that God justifies God and the sinner precisely in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. “For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ: No one comes to the Father, but by me,’ ‘I am the door,’ etc.”47 The theologian of the cross knows that, forgiven by God in Christ and dying to the old, sinful self, the one who trusts in Christ now lives in him and looks forward to being raised with him. According to Luther, too, the gospel is always a counterfactual promise because the one so forgiven still experiences sin and senses mortality in this life. The one so loved still lives in a world of “fate,” of evil and injustice, in a world marked seemingly more by the absence of God and the realities of sin and evil and the universality of death than by God’s gracious and uncanny presence. Not at all obvious in the world 43. Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 12–13. 44. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 78. For a slightly different Lutheran defense of the theology of the cross, see Vίtor Westhelle, The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006). 45. Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, LW1, 31.52–3. 46. B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Reason: A Study in Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 77. 47. Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, LW1, 31.53.

435

436

Fundamental Theology

and its history is the Christian claim that God is love (1 Jn 4.8). It is certainly not obvious that God loves sinners and evil people. The world of nature and history is full of examples of evil and human tragedy, full of sin and suffering, ultimately full of death itself, all of which contradict this basic message that God is merciful and loving toward God’s own enemies. Therefore, the Christian, living by faith in that gospel promise, trusts it, contrary to all appearances. While the law of God is always (but not only or merely) accusatory against human beings, their sins, their self-assured arrogance, and ultimately against their efforts at setting themselves up as gods, the gospel is always and only a gracious promise of divine mercy and forgiveness for the sake of the crucified and risen Christ, with no apparent, visible support in the world of sense experience save the preaching and announcing of that promise, which is also attached to baptism and the Lord’s Supper (and for Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians also to other sacraments). Foundational in this regard is baptism, the ritual washing “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28.19), that connects an individual to the saving work of God and brings the person into fellowship within the community that bears the name of Christ. (So-called “rebaptism” is contrary to this teaching, since it calls into question God’s foundational promise, as if what the Christian does in baptism is more important than what God has done and is doing through it. Mainstream Eastern and Western Christians confess their faith in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”)48 Believers in Christ are not “solo,” autonomous individuals, for they live and die within faith-sustaining communities. The intended aim of the gospel promise is faith (“trust,” “confidence” in God), since faith alone can receive the promise. According to Christian teaching, people are called to live by faith in God over against what they perceive with their senses, not by sight, since there is much that contradicts the message of the gospel in the world of appearances. Against appearances and doubts and, yes, even against the hiddenness of God, one trusts the divine promise, that it will be fulfilled eschatologically, in the end. In the meantime, within the community of faith, one comes to the certainty of faith in God only through spiritual trial and affliction, suffering and death, and doubts, when all false supports for faith drop away. Nothing else is left but the radical promise of God’s mercy in Christ, proclaimed in word and sacraments, which can be received only by faith. According to Luther, God has to shatter “the security we find in philosophical systems and to reduce us to nothing” with the help of spiritual trial, so that at this lowest point we might then hear his word of promise for faith.49

48. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, BC, 23 (emphasis added). “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4.4-6). 49. Thielicke, Modern Faith and Thought, 55.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

The gospel constrains us to decide whether or not we know that we are meant by it. If we do know, then we do not doubt that we must not only decide in one way or in another, but that we have no other choice than to know that we are meant; for our decision is, after all, only the acknowledgment that we are meant.50

In this way faith is always a response to the gospel; it is always trust that the word of the gospel has hit its mark (Rom. 10.9). “Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes from the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10.17). Faith is trusting that the message pertains to oneself, that it is valid for one’s life, that God is summoning one to trust in Christ through the gospel message about him. Oswald Bayer makes use of philosopher John L. Austin’s theory of speech acts, especially the latter’s analysis of performative statements of promise, like those that couples make in the wedding vows that bring their marriage into existence, to underscore Luther’s view that the divine promise in the gospel is the proper subject of Christian theology: In contradistinction to every metaphysical construct of the doctrine of God, God’s truth and will therefore are not abstract properties but are a concrete promise, made orally and publicly, to a particular person in a particular situation. “God” is the one whose promise to us in the oral word is such that we can depend on him. God’s truth lies in his faithfulness to the word that he speaks. Because he has bound himself to the promise that he made to us at our baptism, we are emboldened and empowered through the oral word of the sermon, when we are spiritually attacked, to lay hold of him once again in that same promise. We are made confident that he will snatch us out of ourselves whether in pride (superbia) or in despair (desperatio).51

In this view, Christian faith is both a “knowing” and a “trusting.” It includes elements of knowledge, especially regarding an historical individual (Jesus), yet this knowledge is aimed at eliciting trust in God’s mercy. As Luther insisted, faith is primarily a matter of trusting in God’s forgiveness for the sake of Christ, as proclaimed in the gospel. Agreeing essentially with Luther, Calvin defined faith as the “firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”52 The apostolic witness to Christ is the admonition to be comforted by Christ, to be saved, atoned, reconciled, and redeemed by him. For Luther and Calvin, the opposite of faith is to think that God is against you, to conclude that God is one’s enemy.53 The divine summons is to trust in God’s goodwill through faith in 50. Elert, The Christian Faith, 77. 51. Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, 130–1. 52. Calvin, ICR, III.2.7 (1.551). Cf. Gerrish, Saving and Secular Faith, 12. 53. Gerrish, Saving and Secular Faith, 14. Gerrish agrees with Calvin that God’s wrath is an “accommodated expression,” one that is improper but not false. The classic Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries stressed that God’s wrath is not a human misperception. The wrath of God is real, so real that it was

437

438

Fundamental Theology

Jesus Christ. Through the work of the Holy Spirit people can be confident that God’s ultimate intention toward them in Christ is love. The apostle Paul wrote, There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus … For I am convinced, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8.1, 38–39)

This faithful confidence can be communicated and shared with anyone, anyone who will take the time to listen to the message and the promise it conveys. All who receive the promise are invited to trust in the trustworthiness of God to be merciful and forgiving for the sake of Christ. True “fear of God” allows God to be God in order to hear the word of promise. The psalmist answers his own rhetorical question with trust: “If you, O LORD, should keep track of sins, LORD, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness. Therefore, you are feared” (Ps. 130.3-4). Even the righteous before God consider themselves to be standing in “fear of God, constantly in need of repentance and forgiveness, without which they would be lost.”54 Thus, “fear,” “love,” and “trust” mark the Christian life, but ultimately it is the divine summons to trust that overcomes one’s fears in this life, even one’s fear of almighty God, whose judgments remain an ultimate mystery, but less so in view of Christ. In that faithful view, the summons to love as Christ has loved is also again possible to heed and to follow. Thus, the Christian of today joins the apostle Paul in confessing: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2.19b-20). A most important final point needs to be made in this section on christology. In view of the historic linkage between some understandings of Jesus and anti-Semitism, one must state clearly and strongly that anti-Semitism is antithetical to faith in Jesus the Messiah. Authentic christology must speak against anti-Semitism and all hatred of others that is wrongly and dangerously linked to the person of Jesus and to faith in him. While not minimizing the real tensions that exist between God’s original covenant with the Jews and the new testament inaugurated by Jesus, Christians must recognize and affirm God’s abiding faithfulness to the descendants of Abraham (cf. Rom. 9–11), the election of Israel, the living faith and religious life of Jews today,

necessary for Christ to suffer it and remove it. Faith is trust and belief that God has reconciled one to God through Christ, that God is no longer one’s enemy on account of Christ. 54. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 43. Forde (1927–2005) was here commenting on the seventh thesis of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation: “The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.” The biblical support for this assertion includes the penitential psalms, the Lord’s Prayer (“Forgive us our trespasses…”), and the vision of the righteous in Revelation 21.27.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

and the divine wisdom that is given in the Jewish Scriptures and tradition. Yes, there are radical differences between Judaism and Christianity, but these differences must not lead to hatred toward Jews or any form of anti-Semitism. Jürgen Moltmann emphasized why this matters: Christians are drawn into an inescapable solidarity with Israel—not only with the Israel of the Old Testament, but also with Israel which rightfully exists alongside the church and which in consequence cannot be abolished. Israel demonstrates this to the church which lives through the reconciliation of the (Gentile) world in the crucified Christ, that the redemption of the world is still to come. The church of Christ is not yet perfect, and the kingdom of God has not yet achieved full revelation as long as these two communities of hope, Israel and the church, exist side by side.55

Living “by faith” implies that one does not have God and oneself completely figured out. Even believers in Christ do not always understand the ways of God in the world. They can learn divine wisdom and truth from people of other religions, as challenging as that is to do. While Christians believe that they share, even now, in the promise of a new creation (2 Cor. 5.17), they are still called to struggle against sin and evil within themselves and in this present evil age that is dying away. In this life the new creation, or the “new being” (to use Tillich’s phrase), also remains hidden “with Christ in God” (Col. 3.3). Even the new life in Christ that one receives by faith must be believed and will only be fully revealed when God’s glory is revealed in the end: “When Christ who is your life is unveiled, then you also will be unveiled with him in glory” (Col. 3.4).

The Holy Spirit There is further good news, however, for God does not leave us alone to struggle to find or to maintain our faith in God on our own. God proceeds to us, finds us, holds us, and keeps us. This divine action is the work of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the triune God. The self-giving of the Holy Spirit is thus an additional theme in special revelation. In the fullness of time (Acts 2), God has sent forth the Holy Spirit, a free act of God’s grace, as was the sending of his Son. This outpouring of the Spirit was already promised in the OT, as attested by the prophets Ezekiel (cf. 36.27, 37.14) and Joel (see 2.28-29). And so Christians confess that they believe in “the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”56 In the Apostles’ 55. Moltmann, The Crucified God, 134. 56. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (unaltered text), BC, 23. The Latin word filioque (“and the Son”) was added by the Western Catholic Church (at the Third Council of Toledo in 589) to this ancient creed to express the double procession of the Spirit “from the Father and the Son.” For a side-by-side comparison of

439

440

Fundamental Theology

Creed, the confession of faith in the Holy Spirit is tied to belief in “the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.”57 The primary work of the Holy Spirit is to bring the human being to faith in Jesus Christ and to keep the Christian within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We may cite Luther’s explanation to the third article of the Apostles’ Creed as a succinct summary about the person and work of the Holy Spirit: I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my LORD or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common, true faith. Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins—mine and those of all believers. On the Last Day the Holy Spirit will raise me and all the dead and will give to me and all believers in Christ eternal life.58

So, the Holy Spirit is no mere afterthought in Christian teaching. Rather, the work of the Holy Spirit is active in all human beings, giving them life and breath (cf. Gen. 2.7; Ps. 139.7-10), and wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon 7.24-25), but ultimately seeking to bring Christ to them, drawing them into the life of Christ, and transforming them according to God’s will. Yes, the Spirit is active in every human life, a teaching that is indicated by the connection that biblical texts make between God’s Spirit and human life and breath. (In both Hebrew and Greek, the word for “spirit” is the same as for “breath” or “wind.”) But the Spirit is acting in a new and different way to bring people to faith in Christ. In the Gospel of John, Jesus promises: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (Jn 16.13-15). The Spirit’s action is about more than establishing faith in Christ and keeping Christians united in that community of faith. The Spirit brings about the praise of God’s mighty deeds (Acts 2.11), especially the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and his glorification as Christ and Lord. The Spirit also grants courage and boldness to bear witness to the crucified and exalted Christ to the world. While already in the old covenant God’s Spirit awakened witnesses to his mighty deeds, since the day of Pentecost, God’s Spirit is being poured out on all people (Acts 2.17). This is in fulfillment of what God promised through the prophet Joel: “I will pour out my spirit the Greek and Latin versions of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, see Denzinger, 150. The introduction of the filioque clause into the Creed has been a point of contention between Eastern and Western Christians to this day. 57. The Apostles’ Creed, BC, 22. 58. Luther, Small Catechism (the Creed), BC, 355–6.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my spirit” (Joel 2.28-29). In the new covenant, God’s Spirit is given for the building up of the church, which is also described as “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (2 Cor. 6.16). To each person the Spirit has been given “for the benefit of all” (1 Cor. 12.7). The Holy Spirit is also breaking down the dividing walls that separate people, one from another, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female (Gal. 3.28). The Spirit is creating one people from many, reuniting the scattered peoples of the earth (cf. Gen. 11.1-9 and Acts 2). The aim of the Spirit is the creation of a new humanity, a movement that seeks to overcome all divisions and animosities of the old creation. With the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the new creation that began with the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is breaking into the old world. The Spirit also grants the church a diversity of gifts for building up the community. The Spirit works faith, hope, and love through the powerful word of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. The Holy Spirit breaks the bonds of sin and death and the powers of evil, and liberates people to live in freedom for God, other people, and God’s creation. To the church the Holy Spirit has entrusted the Scriptures of the OT and the NT. Through the working of the Spirit, Christians today come to understand the Bible’s purpose and meaning, to unveil God’s word of judgment and grace and ultimately to point to the person of Jesus Christ and the salvation he has accomplished. Through baptism, the Spirit transfers the individual into the ownership and service of the exalted Christ, who is their Lord and Savior. Through Christ’s holy Supper, the Spirit nourishes and builds up the members of the church, which the NT also calls “the body of Christ.” So the Spirit makes the individual a child of God, a sibling of Christ, who is their elder brother and friend. “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Rom. 8.14). When those adopted children of God cry, “Abba, Father!,” it is that very Spirit “bearing witness” with their spirit that they are “children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if in fact we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom. 8.15-17; cf. Gal. 4.6). The Spirit helps us in our weakness, even when we cannot find the words to speak to God (Rom. 8.26). Not without reason, throughout the history of the church several hymns have been composed to praise the work of the Holy Spirit. Through these spiritual songs Christians worship the Spirit as the Giver of life, as the New Creator, the one who will transform our “body of humiliation” so that it might be conformed to the glorious body of Christ (Phil. 3.21). Among the more famous of these hymns is “Creator Spirit, Heavenly Dove,” which was composed in the ninth century. That hymn begins by alluding to the Spirit’s coming in the form of a dove upon Jesus at his baptism, but it also refers to Jesus’ promise that he would send his disciples the Spirit as their

441

442

Fundamental Theology

“advocate” or “comforter” (Jn 15.26-27). The fulfillment of that promise took place at Pentecost, an event that included the outpouring of the Spirit’s gifts upon the newly created church: Creator Spirit, heav’nly dove, descend upon us from above; with graces manifold restore your creatures as they were before. To you, the Comforter, we cry, to you, the gift of God most high, true fount of life, the fire of love, the soul’s anointing from above. In you, with graces sevenfold, we God’s almighty hand behold; while you with tongues of fire proclaim to all the world God’s holy name. Your light to every sense impart, and shed your love in every heart; your own unfailing might supply to strengthen our infirmity. Teach us to know the Father, Son, and you, of both, to be but one; that through the ages all along your praise may be our endless song.59

Paul emphasizes the specific gifts or “fruit” of the Spirit that are produced in the lives of believers for edifying the church: love, joy, peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5.22; cf. Eph. 5.9). The Spirit thus nourishes and strengthens the community of Christ in a mutual service of love. These gifts of the Spirit are not meant for the private pleasure of the individual Christian; they are to be used in service to others (1 Cor. 12.7). All such gifts, all such service and servant ministry, are motivated and permeated by the greatest of the gifts, love. The recognition of the Spirit’s action in the world is always a matter of faith, for this action takes place “in a hidden way under certain ambiguities. The knowledge of the Holy Spirit is by no means self-evident.”60 Those who are guided by the Spirit often appear to others to be weak, “different,” strange, full of suffering, and undergoing setbacks. Thus, the action of the Spirit is often hidden under suffering and weakness, hidden even to the person who is struggling to believe in God. The example of Paul is illustrative: the power of Christ through the Spirit was hidden beneath the suffering and humiliation that Paul experienced in his life (cf. 2 Cor. 12.7-10). Those who are filled by the Spirit are “poor,” those who have nothing—and yet possess everything (2 Cor. 6.10). The Spirit prays beneath “sighs too deep for words” (Rom. 8.26). The action of the Holy Spirit is revealed precisely in its hiddenness. “The action of the Spirit does not make faith superfluous, for it does not set seeing in the place of believing. It is instead in faith alone that the action of the Spirit is discerned, and this applies not only to its recognition by outsiders but also by those who believe.”61 These words offer a caution to those who might want to base their Christian life on enthusiastic, ecstatic “experiences” of the Spirit (e.g., “speaking in tongues”) and who think they no longer have need of faith. Moreover, Christians are exhorted always 59. Rhabanus Maurus, “Creator Spirit, Heavenly Dove” (ELW, #578). 60. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, ESW, 2/2.825. 61. Ibid., 2/2.827.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

“to test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 Jn 4.1), to test them against the clear teaching of God’s historical act of salvation in Jesus. The work of the Spirit is always to point away from the Spirit to Christ: the Spirit brings Jesus’ words to remembrance (Jn 14.26) and glorifies him (Jn 16.14), to the glory of God the Father. Toward that end, we should not “quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5.19) but “be zealous for the gifts of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 14.1; cf. 12.1), especially the gift of love.

Trinitarian theology On the basis of the apostolic witness to Jesus, to his teaching about his Father, and to the working of the Holy Spirit, early Christians worshiped and praised God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The development of trinitarian theology (thinking about the Trinity) in the first six centuries of the Christian church and the development of christology (thinking about Christ) and pneumatology (thinking about the Holy Spirit) in these and subsequent centuries must be understood in the context of the overall attempts by church leaders to remain faithful to the gospel promise within the apostolic and prophetic witness to Christ for the sake of creating and sustaining faith in him. The concern within these dogmatic developments is both theological—seeking to preserve the identity of God in God’s historical acts, as these have been shaped and attested in the biblical traditions—and soteriological (salvific)—endeavoring to keep the gospel promise as what it is, truly “good news.” From this vantage point, whatever theological developments have occurred in the history of Christian theology need to be evaluated principally on the basis of the apostolic witness to the gospel promise and its effective articulation to later generations, while also attending to how the gospel promise was communicated in the languages and thought forms of these later generations. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that there is one God in three “persons,” Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This one eternal God, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, has further revealed himself in the temporal course of salvation history to be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The confession of the triune God thus affirms God’s eternity, God’s transcendence and absoluteness, while at the same time affirming God’s involvement in time, God’s immanent, relational, salvific action in Jesus and through the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity thus seeks to maintain both God’s eternity and God’s temporal presence, both God’s oneness and God’s differentiation, both God’s transcendence and God’s immanence. The basic point of trinitarian theology is to reject every form of polytheism, for example, tritheism (belief in three gods), while affirming a dynamic, distinctively Christian form of monotheism, whose roots are in the OT.

443

444

Fundamental Theology

While the Scriptures do not contain the term the Trinity (it was coined in the second century by Tertullian), the Bible’s witness to salvation history, which contains a kind of progressive self-revelation of God, has rightly led to the development of the church’s confession and teaching about the triune God. The “oneness” of God, as confessed in the Shema (Deut. 6.4), underscores God’s uniqueness, a teaching that is also implied in the name that God revealed to Moses (“I am who I am,” Exod. 3.14). The LORD alone is the Creator and Lord of all. Yet even in the OT, there are passages that suggest a multiplicity within God, for example, when God speaks using the first person plural pronoun (“we,” e.g., Gen. 1.26, 3.22, 11.17; Isa. 6.8 et passim), or when three figures are mysteriously identified with the LORD, or when OT passages refer to God’s Word, Spirit, and Wisdom (e.g., Gen. 1.1; Ps. 143.10; Isa. 63.10; Prov. 8). Most importantly, though, the OT teaches that only the LORD can save sinners, that only God is able to reconcile himself with his fallen creation. Especially significant for the development of trinitarian reflection was the statement in Isaiah (the Septuagint Greek translation): “Not an intercessor, nor an angel, but the LORD himself saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them” (Isa. 63.9). No one less than God can accomplish this salvation, and yet throughout the NT Jesus is the one who is said to be the divine means of salvation, redemption, reconciliation. As we have already noted, the NT makes claims about both the humanity and the deity of Jesus, and these claims form the starting point for the doctrine of the Trinity. Through additional reflection on the OT and NT witness to God’s Spirit, the early church clarified its understanding of the deity of the Spirit as well. Over several centuries, church theologians and councils have rejected some understandings of Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father as running contrary to the prophetic and apostolic witness to God. Among these rejected teachings are polytheism (tritheism) and pantheism (i.e., that somehow God needed creation in order to develop as God). But other positions are criticized as well. For example, in agreement with the Council of Nicaea, the Augsburg Confession (1530) rejects the teaching of Arius (that the Logos is a creature) but also any anti-trinitarianism (Unitarianism) and the teaching of Paul of Samosata (that Jesus was merely a man who became especially endowed by the Spirit). This classic Lutheran confessional document states the doctrine of the Trinity in traditional terms: There is one divine essence which is called God and is God: eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, of immeasurable power, wisdom, and goodness, the creator and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. Yet, there are three persons, coeternal and of the same essence and power: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the term “person” is used for that meaning which the church’s authors used in this case: to signify not a part or a quality in another but that which subsists in itself.62

62. Augsburg Confession, Art. 1 (BC, 37).

Key Themes in Special Revelation

While this article does not mention Sabellianism (also called Modalism, i.e., the idea that there is one God and the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three modes in which this one God has appeared consecutively), that idea too has been rejected by orthodox Christians as contrary to biblical teaching. While the doctrine of the Trinity may seem strange at first glance, it does not have to be simply accepted as a “paradox” or a “mystery,” nor rejected as nonsensical. There is a theo-logic to this doctrine that makes sense within the parameters of the biblical witness to God’s salvific action through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. While this doctrine does not dispel the ultimate incomprehensibility of God, it does seek to give voice to the fullness of the divine economy of salvation, while also demarcating theological understandings that pervert or fall short of the biblical witness to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The doxological context for voicing that biblical fullness cannot be overstated. It is impossible to understand and appreciate the church’s witness to the triune God apart from the worshiping and praying church, apart from the adoration of God and his mighty deeds of salvation. A detailed account of recent developments in trinitarian theology is beyond the scope of this introductory text. I have identified a few of the more important works in this area of theology at the end of this chapter. I will here simply outline a few key points: Christians understand God the Father to be the eternal origin or the eternal source from which the eternal Son and the eternal Spirit of God have “proceeded.” Christians make a distinction between the “generation” or “birth” of the Son and the “procession” or “spiration” of the Spirit. This distinction is clear in salvation history, where the incarnation of the Logos took place in Jesus’ conception and the outpouring of the Spirit took place at Pentecost. But there is also an eternal procession of the Son and the Spirit from the Father, while God the Father is without origin. The eternal Son and the eternal Spirit have never been nonexistent, but their source is God the Father. Because the Father is the eternal source of the Son and the Spirit, the Father never works alone from eternity to eternity but is always in communion with the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit are also in an eternal relationship with the Father and one another, and are never alone. The Eastern fathers, especially the Cappadocians, have maintained a greater emphasis on the threeness of the trinitarian persons, while the Western tradition (following Augustine’s trinitarian theology) has placed a greater emphasis on the oneness of God’s being triune.63 An important 63. See Augustine, The Trinity, WSA, I/5. Augustine gave priority to the one divine substance and only then analyzed the three divine persons. He was uncomfortable with the term person and preferred to speak about the divine “relations” within the one divine substance. Augustine developed a series of human analogies to describe his understanding of trinitarian relationality, based on the presupposition that humans are created “in the image of God” and thus must in some way be analogous to God’s being. For example, the Father, the

445

446

Fundamental Theology

Eastern term, perichoresis, has been used since the eighth century to describe the “interpenetration,” “communion,” and “mutual indwelling” of the three persons of the Trinity, underscoring their fundamental unity. The Cappadocians also helped to sharpen the terminology used in trinitarian reflection. Ousia (“being,” “essence”) connotes the one divine essence that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share, while hypostasis is the term for each of the divine persons. God is “three hypostaseis (persons) and one divine ousia (essence).” While Western-Augustinian trinitarian theology unfolded differently from Eastern trinitarian theology, all orthodox, catholic Christians (including orthodox Protestants) teach and confess that God the Father is the eternal source of the Son and the Spirit, and such Christians also teach and confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the one God. “They praise the one God in the distinctiveness of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and they praise the distinctions among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity of God. Both statements belong inseparably together and are united in their inseparability in the confession of the triune God.”64

The church Christians also confess that they “believe in … the holy catholic [Christian] church” (the Apostles’ Creed), “the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” (the NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed).65 What is true of the Christian as believer is also true of the new community that hears the voice of Christ and lives from his word, namely, the church (Greek: ekklesia = “called out ones”), a further theme in the special revelation of God. The church, too, as a community of people, is an article of faith, not a matter of clear visibility. The oneness of the people of God is as much an article of faith as is the church’s holiness. Indeed, the actual communities of Christians, the congregations and institutional structures that are visible to all, believers and non-believers alike, Son, and the Spirit correspond to the human mind, knowledge, and love (or memory, understanding, and will). Augustine also developed an analogy for the Trinity based on the concept of love: the Father is the lover, the Son is the beloved, and the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son. In this context, Augustine developed his understanding of the filioque, that is, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 64. Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics, ESW, 2/2.1089. 65. In this creedal context, the term church with a lowercase c refers to “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” or “the church of Jesus Christ,” which cannot be strictly identified with any one church body or denomination. In the NT, a church is always a group of people, a congregation, or an assembly, never a building. The cognate term catholic (from the Greek “katholikos”) here means “general” or “universal.” It thus refers to the universal church as distinct from local communities, the one church of Christ, which again cannot be strictly identified with any one church body or denomination.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

are often anything but “holy.” If we want to talk about the visibility of the church, then we had better be prepared to talk about all of the church’s unholiness, its sins and failures, its corruption and scandals. No congregation is free of manifest sinners and hypocrites (and there is always room for one more). “The church is hidden; the saints are unknown.”66 The church is only holy because it receives the forgiveness of sins and the holiness of Christ as a gift. While faith perceives the reality of the church on earth, due to the effective power of the proclaimed gospel and administered sacraments, the church will be visibly and clearly revealed for what it is intended to be only in the revelation of Christ in glory. This one church of Christ, the communion of forgiven sinners, is described theologically through several key NT metaphors and symbols: as the people of God, as those who serve the Lord, as the body of Christ, as the growing new creation, and as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Some theologians, such as Luther, have also spoken of the “marks of the church,” that is, signs that point to the reality of the church. According to Luther, there are seven such “marks”: the preaching of the word of God, holy baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the public and private reproving and forgiving of people’s sins, the holy ministry, the public liturgy (singing, praising God, etc.), and the sacred cross.67 Wherever one hears or sees these notae ecclesiae (“marks of the church”), one can be certain that the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Christ is there. Rubbing against this faith in the one church of Christ, however, is the appearance of the empirical churches as disparate, flawed, and divided groups of Christians who do not all agree on the same points of doctrine and practice and who do not live as if they are among the sanctified. What Christians confess of the church is different from what it appears to be on earth. They long for the revelation of the reality in which they also believe. In the meantime, they live by God’s grace alone, within concrete fellowships of faith, hope, and love; they continue to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a foretaste of the heavenly banquet to come; and they work toward maintaining holy communion in the bond of peace and toward overcoming those issues that currently divide the publicly visible churches from one another. For more than a century now, one of the principal tasks of theology has been to overcome the divisions among the divided churches and to call them to work toward greater unity in the gospel. The modern Ecumenical Movement has sought ways of furthering visible unity among the divided churches of Christ until the day of the revelation of Christ and those who belong to him. Thus, ecclesiology, the study of the church as a theological entity, and sacramental theology, the study of the ritual actions within the Christian churches, also address elements within special revelation.

66. Luther, The Bondage of the Will, LW1, 33.89. 67. Luther, On the Councils and the Church (1539), LW1, 41.148-66.

447

448

Fundamental Theology

Until that final revelation of the church, when it will be revealed to be what the apostles have said it is, the church proclaims the gospel and administers the sacraments (especially baptism, the Lord’s Supper [also called Holy Communion or the Eucharist], and Holy Absolution [the formal proclamation of the forgiveness of sins)—all for the sake of calling people to faith, hope, and love and keeping them united with Christ and with one another in the one church of Christ. And where the gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments administered in accord with that gospel, there the church truly is. Indeed, the Holy Spirit acts through the word and the sacraments, in Luther’s phrase, “to call, gather, enlighten, and sanctify the whole Christian church on earth” (the church is not a Platonic reality) and keep it united to Christ.68 Because of the power of the Spirit to create and preserve the church, even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Mt. 16.18). The task of preaching the gospel is grounded in the task of interpreting and applying the Scriptures to present-day people. Such proclamation is not merely about historical events of long ago, for the Spirit is presently at work through that proclamation, creating and sustaining faith and empowering people to live in Christ. In this sense, the proclamation of the gospel is a means of divine grace, a way in which God creates trust in him and brings forth the fruit of the Spirit. A gospel-centered sermon is a key element in Christian worship. Through this human speaking, God speaks to people today. While Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians acknowledge and practice seven sacraments (baptism, the Eucharist, absolution, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and anointing of the sick), most Protestants recognize only the first two (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Confessional Lutherans also recognize absolution and holy orders (ordained pastoral ministry) as additional sacraments, and some will acknowledge that the anointing of the sick with oil also has a sacramental character.69 For sacramental Protestants, a sacrament must be an action that was instituted by Christ, which uses a physical element (e.g., water, bread, wine, audible

68. Luther, Small Catechism (The Apostles’ Creed), BC, 355–6 (emphasis added). 69. “Absolution can properly be called the sacrament of penance, as even the more learned scholastic theologians say” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XII.41, [BC, 193]). “Therefore, the sacraments are actually baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution (the sacrament of penance)” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XIII.4 [BC, 219]). “But if ordination is understood with reference to the ministry of the Word, we have no objection to calling ordination a sacrament” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XIII.11 [BC, 220]). Lutheran Christians practice confirmation, which they hold to be a rite of the reaffirmation of baptism, but they do not consider it to be a sacrament since it was not commanded by Jesus and does not have the promise of divine grace added to it. Many Lutheran pastors and elders anoint the sick with oil (cf. Jas 5.14), but this rite lacks “the expressed command of God” and “a clear promise of grace” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XIII.6 [BC, 220]). Marriage is not an exclusively Christian possession but an institution that belongs to all of humanity. Marriage is not commanded by Jesus, and it does not confer God’s grace.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

words), and promises divine grace or the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is grounded in the command of the risen Christ given at the end of the Gospel of Matthew: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28.19). Baptism (from the Greek word “to wash”) entails water and a divine promise of forgiveness (Acts 2.38; 10.43), new life (cf. Rom. 6; Gal. 3.26-28; Col. 2.12-13), sanctification and justification (1 Cor. 6.11; Tit. 3.5-8), cleansing (Eph. 5.26; Heb. 10.22), and salvation from divine judgment (Acts 2.40-47). Again, mainstream Eastern and Western Christians confess their faith in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” There is no need for a second baptism, a “rebaptism,” as if there could be such a thing.70 One baptism is sufficient, for God’s baptismal promise of forgiveness and eternal life is objectively sufficient and valid. The Lord’s Supper is grounded in the words of Jesus recorded in First Corinthians 11 and in the Synoptic Gospels in the context of Jesus’ Last Supper: While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many.” (Mk 14.22-24; cf. Mt. 26.26-29; Lk. 22.15-20; 1 Cor. 11.23-26. Cf. also Jn 6, which contains allusions to the Lord’s Supper)

Here, too, there is the command of Jesus “to do this,” the physical elements of bread and wine, and the promise of the forgiveness of sins. Lutheran Christians stress that the validity of the sacraments, carried out in accord with Christ’s institution, is not dependent on the faith of the one receiving the sacrament. All depends on the power and efficacy of God’s word of promise, which is attached to the sacraments. Nevertheless, Lutheran Christians also teach that the sacraments become useless when they are not received and put to use in faith. For example, the benefit of receiving the Lord’s Supper is not in the eating and drinking per se, but rather in trusting the words “given for you” and “shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” “These words, when accompanied by the physical eating and drinking, are the essential thing in the sacrament, and whoever believes these very words has what they declare and state, namely, ‘forgiveness of sins.’ ”71 And the benefit of baptism is to return to its promises every day, to remember one’s baptism daily, to die to sin daily through contrition and repentance, and every day to rise as a new

70. In the sixteenth century in Europe, so-called “Anabaptists” (literally “rebaptizers”) held that their adult baptism was not a “rebaptism” or a “second baptism,” since, in their view, the application of water to infants could not be a real baptism. While the term Anabaptist was a pejorative label applied to these individuals by their enemies, who persecuted them, they eventually accepted the designation. The major branches of Anabaptist Christianity today include the Amish, the Hutterites, the Mennonites, and the Apostolic Christian Church. 71. Luther, Small Catechism (The Sacrament of the Altar), BC, 363.

449

450

Fundamental Theology

person to live before God in righteousness and purity forever. “We were buried with Christ through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we, too, are to walk in a new life” (Rom. 6.4). Sadly, significant differences regarding the nature, efficacy, and instrumentality of the sacraments continue to divide Christians from one another. What constitutes a valid sacrament? We have already stated the basic Lutheran position on that question. Is baptism God’s action upon the sinner, or is baptism an outward sign of an adult believer’s conversion and faith? Again, Lutheran Christians answer “yes” to the former question but “no” to the latter. Does the amount of water used in a baptism really matter for its efficacy? No. What about the distinction some make between “water baptism” and “Spirit baptism?” Again, for those who confess the Nicene Creed, there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. In the early church there was no distinction between “water baptism” and “Spirit baptism.” Water baptism is the Spirit’s baptism. The early church knew and practiced only water baptism. Should infants and young children be baptized? In agreement with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other Christians, Lutherans answer “yes” to that question. The promise of spiritual rebirth and renewal in baptism is valid for all, regardless of age. We should note, too, that whereas the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions aligns closely with Orthodox and Roman Catholic teaching about the objective effectiveness of baptism and the Eucharist, many other Protestants (e.g., Baptists) understand these rituals to be more symbolic actions. Questions abide with respect to the Lord’s Supper, too. Is it a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, as the Roman Church teaches, or is it primarily the distribution of the benefits of Christ’s achieved through his once-and-for-all-time sacrifice on the cross, as the Lutheran Confessions teach? How are the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the church related to one another in the Lord’s Supper? How is it possible that a one-time historical event becomes present again and again in the course of history? How is the exalted Christ “present” in this sacrament? What is the proper way to understand the relationship between the bread and the wine and the body and the blood of Christ? These remain ongoing questions in ecumenical discussions across the various earthly churches. The doctrine of the holy ministry and the organization of the church, which are related to some of the earlier questions regarding the validity of the sacraments, are also matters for ongoing ecumenical discussion. The church is both an institution and a communion of living people. During his earthly ministry, Jesus selected twelve individuals to serve as his “apostles,” his sent ones. The apostle Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1.12-26), while several others beyond the Twelve, including at least one woman (Junia, mentioned in Rom. 16.7), were also called “apostles.” Paul, who was not an eyewitness to the earthly ministry of Jesus, was nevertheless made an apostle through the commissioning he received from the risen Christ (Gal. 1.12; 1 Cor. 15.8-10). Still others were included in this category,

Key Themes in Special Revelation

for example, James the brother of Jesus, Andronicus (also mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Romans), and Barnabas, one of Paul’s close associates. The concept of apostle was therefore a rather broad one, at least according to the biblical witness. What is clear is that all apostles bore witness to the resurrection of Jesus and were commissioned by him to go into the world as his ambassadors and missionaries. Where the apostles went, churches were planted and nourished. The apostles thus formed a collective identity and a bond of unity, which is also clear in terms of their acceptance of Paul as an authoritative apostle. Paul made a special trip to Jerusalem “to get to know Cephas [Peter]” (Gal. 1.18). Protestants also acknowledge the special position among the apostles that was held by Peter, to whom the risen Christ appeared first (1 Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24.34; though different in Jn 20, where the risen Christ appears first to Mary Magdalene). The one who had denied and abandoned Jesus was restored to communion with the risen Christ (Jn 21.15-19), and he appears in Acts to be the initiator of apostolic activity. But we must also note that the Lord called others to be apostles as well, including James, the Lord’s brother, who led the Jerusalem congregation in its first years, along with other leaders called “the elders” (cf. Acts 15). Every apostle had authority, and no one apostle had an authority apart from the others. It is worth noting, too, that Peter is not mentioned again in the book of Acts after the fifteenth chapter. His special commissioning is one that was given to all apostles: “strengthen your brothers.” We must note, too, that for Protestants, the disputed saying of Jesus to Peter (Mt. 16.18) does not mean that Peter is the primary foundation of the church or the builder of the church, nor that the church is founded on his sole authority or apostleship. Jesus Christ is the builder of his church (Eph. 2.20-22). Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ is the foundation on which Christ will build his church.72 72. The claims for the primacy and authority of the Roman bishop over the universal church are rejected by the Eastern churches and Protestant churches, as is the further Roman claim that anyone who does not accept the Roman pontiff ’s claims to primacy over all Christians is irretrievably lost. For Lutherans, these claims have become even more problematic in view of the claims for papal infallibility and the papal promulgation of the most recent Marian dogmas (her immaculate conception—promulgated in 1854—and her bodily assumption into heaven—promulgated in 1950). Ecumenical discussion about these claims, of course, raises the issue of the authority and right interpretation of Scripture and the authority of church traditions that are not explicitly biblical. For Lutherans, who maintain that particular forms of church government and polity are not prescribed in the Scriptures (and who thus remain open to the authority of the pope but solely by human arrangement), what is important is that the gospel be proclaimed and the sacraments administered rightly in accord with the gospel. It is unclear that Peter ever was the “bishop” of Rome, even if he did die in the city. The names of his supposed successor bishops up to the end of the first century “are no more than names. They are probably the result of later second-century back-projection to create a history for the episcopal succession in the era when episcopal succession had become significant” (MacCulloch, Christianity, 135). See the essays in Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974).

451

452

Fundamental Theology

According to Paul’s letters, through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the whole church, all members of the church are equipped to become witnesses to God’s salvific action in Christ. Each believer receives one or more of the Spirit’s “gifts” (charismata), whose purpose is to build up the church and its confession of faith (1 Cor. 12–14; Rom. 12.6-8). These gifts are to be distinguished from the fruit of the Spirit. While the latter are given to all Christians, the former are distributed in various ways among the faithful. While there is a certain hierarchy in the charismata, favoring the kerygmatic and teaching gifts, other gifts, such as leader and administrator are mentioned at a later spot (1 Cor. 12.28; Rom. 12.6-8), after apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors (cf. Eph. 4.11, where pastors come before teachers, but after prophets and evangelists). Nevertheless, all the charismata, including the gifts of healing and other servant ministries serve the proclamation and teaching of the word and the edification of the community. “Serve one another with whatever gift each of you has received” (1 Pet. 4.10). To ward off chaotic enthusiasm and unhealthy disorder in the congregation, all the gifts are to be “tested” and evaluated to see if they are truly edifying the church. In the midst of all the charismata, love is “the more precious way” (Luther’s translation of 1 Cor. 12.31). Lutheran Christians have taken different paths with respect to the organization of the institutional church. The unity of the church, in their view, is not dependent on a single type of polity or structure. From the very beginning of the church, there has been a multiplicity of models of organizing church and ministry. The Jerusalem model, under the early leadership of James, was quite different from the more dynamic, charismatic model that seems to have operated within the Pauline mission churches. Down the ages, three basic patterns of organization have arisen within Christian communities, each with its own strengths and weaknesses that we need not identify here: an episcopal ordering (with bishops serving as overseers of pastors of congregations), a presbyterian ordering (with elders exercising leadership in collaboration with pastors), and a congregational or synodical ordering (with pastors attending to word and sacraments while laity leading in most other matters). Some “congregational” models focus more on the complete autonomy of the local congregation rather than on authority within the congregation. Also, we should note that some Pentecostal Christians deny ordained ministry of any kind. This side of the ultimate revelation of the church, Christians trust that Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church truly exists on earth and that the people of God are active in faith, hope, and love through the effective working of the Spirit. Such trust is based on the visible means of God’s grace by which the church is created and sustained: the preaching of the gospel, the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the confession of sins, the announcement of forgiveness of sins on account of Christ, the singing of spiritual songs and hymns in praise of God through Christ, the mutual consolation and encouragement of the brothers and sisters in Christ, and the sign of Christ’s cross.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

But the church is more than merely an earthly institution comprised of fallible, sinful, forgiven, spiritually gifted people. The church is the mystical body of the crucified and risen Christ in the world. The church is the means by which Christ is graciously present in the world, acting through word and sacrament and works of mercy. The church is also Christ’s mission to serve the deep needs of a hurting and dying world. Following the example of Jesus and the early apostles, the church, as the people of God, is called to promote human justice, to serve the poor and the marginalized and the ignored, and to speak up for human dignity. These are the concrete ways in which the Spirit’s charismata are put into action in our troubled world.

Last things Finally, there are additional consequences that Christians recognize on the basis of what has been specially revealed through Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit. For example, most Christians believe that because the divine promise includes the statement that death itself cannot separate human beings from the love of God, God, the Creator of life who is the sole lord over life and death, will bring them through death into eternal life. God’s relationship to human beings cannot be frustrated by sin, death, or even the dissolution of “this present evil age.” “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1.3). Christians thus hope for God’s future wherein God will transform mortal and sinful human beings and reveal them to be “the children of light” in the general resurrection of the dead “on the last day.” In this “new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21) God will no longer be known in part, that is, “by faith,” but his “glory” will be revealed to all flesh (Isa. 40.5) and God will be known “face to face” (1 Cor. 13.12). Christian hope, however, is not merely a hope centered on the future of human beings, since Christians also long for “the restoration of all things” (Acts 3.21), the consummation of creation in “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21.1). Thus, eschatology, teaching about the end—and about the present on the basis of the eschatological in-breaking of God’s reign in Jesus and his resurrection from the dead—is also a theme in the special revelation of God. Eschatology is about both the “then” of the end and the “now” of the present.

The promise of the gospel Given what has been said about God in this chapter, it is clear that God encounters humankind in many different ways. “In the midst of the contradictory and complementary ways in which God encounters us, which are laden with tension

453

454

Fundamental Theology

and conflict, the gospel stands out in its uniqueness as God’s decisive, final word. The gospel, strictly speaking, is a promise without any demand, a pure promise (promissio), a gift.”73 In the most basic and specific way, the proper theme of Christian theology is this promise. It is given in both the apostolic preaching about Jesus, that is, the kerygma or “proclamation” about him, which of necessity also includes reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and in the apostolic parenesis or “exhortation” that follows as a consequence of the gospel promise but not as a condition of it. Contemporary Christian theology must keep its focus on the abiding truth within the apostolic witness—inclusive of both the kerygma and the parenesis in their service to the gospel promise—and on the complex world of present-day human beings, their language, and concepts. What the abiding truth is in the apostolic witness to the gospel promise, of course, remains open for investigation, discussion, and rearticulation in the present situation of theologians and their world, even as the historical development of Christian doctrine remains open for further investigation and assessment in light of this same gospel. The substantive content of Christian theology cannot be answered historically, as if one could merely repeat what previous theologians have said regarding the content of Christian teaching in the language and thought forms of their day and in view of their own problems and challenges. Rather, the subject of Christian theology is always in part dependent upon what the apostolic witness to the gospel promise means today, how that proclamation and consequent exhortation are to be understood and spoken in the present, and how that witness remains a valid witness today. The subject of Christian theology is also partially shaped by the significant criticisms that are leveled against it, not merely in the dominant voices of atheism and religious criticism, but also in the voices and claims of the other world religions. What is the essential content of the apostolic witness? What within that witness is essential for the gospel promise to be the gospel? How does one articulate that promise today, so that it is meaningful for contemporary sinful human beings? How should one respond to criticisms of that promise that call it into question? These challenges are always inherent in the task of Christian theology, at least if it hopes to remain attentive to the historic apostolic witness to Jesus and to its immediacy for contemporary human beings. Christian theologians are always challenged to find that point within the content of Christian teaching, which most immediately confronts contemporary individuals with the reality of its subject matter. People from one generation to the next have discussed and analyzed the normative, abiding gospel content within the apostolic witness, yet the history of Christian theology shows that Christian theology is constantly changing, since the people so engaged in the theological task undergo change over time, as do the people 73. Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, 125.

Key Themes in Special Revelation

addressed by its findings. In this way, too, Christian theology is often compelled to raise questions to the churches themselves, perhaps even to speak a critical word against them, when it appears that their beliefs and practices are running contrary to the abiding truth within the apostolic witness. “Theology reforms the church, not vice versa.”74

Questions for review and discussion











1. What are key aspects of the Christian teaching that God is the Creator? 2. What are some problems connected to the word Father in reference to God? Do you think it is appropriate that some Christian theologians insist on also using the word Mother in reference to God? 3. Many theologians criticize the notion of the “wrath of God.” Others, such as Luther, insist that the concept is both biblical and experiential. What do you think about the concept of the wrath of God? Are human beings really as bad off before God as the author indicates? 4. What are the common elements in the gospel as affirmed by both Roman Catholics and Lutherans? 5. How is the gospel a promise? What gets promised? Why do Protestant theologians insist that the gospel promise can be had only by faith? 6. How does a theologian of the cross differ from a theologian of glory? 7. Why is the church also a matter of divine revelation? When will that revelation take place? What are some of the reasons Christians churches are divided from one another today? Do you think that there will ever be visible unity among Christians on earth? Why or why not? 8. What are sacraments? Do all Christians practice the same number of sacraments? How many do Roman Catholics observe and practice? How many do Lutherans? What is your own experience, if any, with sacraments? 9. What is eschatology? Do you think that the biblical reference to “the end of the world” should be understood mythologically (as Bultmann did), or do you think there will be an actual end of the world (as Pannenberg and others have argued)? 10. Not much is said about Christian ethics in this chapter. Is this a weakness of the chapter? What place do Christian ethics have in the special revelation of God?

74. Elert, The Christian Faith, 6.

455

456

Fundamental Theology

Suggestions for further reading Reference works in Christian doctrinal theology James M. Arcadi and James T. Turner, eds., T&T Clark Handbook of Analytical Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2021). [Helpful essays on methods and sources in contemporary Christian theology and philosophy, the doctrine of God, the person and work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, creation, and Christian practices.] Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price, eds., A New Handbook of Christian Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992). [A useful reference work that provides brief entries on central topics within Christian theology, including the issues relating to natural theology.] John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). [Provides historical and systematic overviews of key issues, figures, and movements within contemporary Christian systematic theology.]

Basic works in Christian doctrinal theology Gustav Aulén, The Faith of the Christian Church, 5th edn, trans. Eric H. Wahlstrom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960). [An older work in systematic theology by one of the leading Scandinavian Lutheran theologians of the twentieth century. After an introduction to faith and theology, Aulén analyzes the Christian concept of God, the mighty acts of God (culminating in the salvific action of Jesus), and the church.] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (originally published: 1932–67), 4 vols in 13, plus index volume, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley, G. T. Thomson, T. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnston, J. L. M. Haire, J. C. Campbell, Iain Wilson, J. Strathearn, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, R. J. Ehrlich, Harold Knight, J. K. S. Reid, R. A. Stewart, and R. H. Fuller (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936–77). [The most influential project in Christian systematic theology in the twentieth century. While left unfinished at his death, Barth’s multivolume presentation of church teaching covers in minute detail the word of God, the doctrine of the triune God, the doctrine of creation, and reconciliation in Christ. For a good introduction to this massive monument of Christian theology, read George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).] Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, ed. and trans. Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). [Provides one of the best contemporary summaries of Luther’s understanding of Christian teaching.] Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., Christian Dogmatics, 2 vols (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). [A standard introduction to Christian teaching by six leading American Lutheran theologians in the final third of the twentieth century. After a section on prolegomena, the work covers eleven other topics: the triune God, the knowledge of God, creation, sin and evil, the person of Jesus Christ, the work

Key Themes in Special Revelation

of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, the means of grace, the Christian life, and eschatology.] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (the edition of 1559), 2 vols, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics 20–1 (London: SCM, 1960). [The classic summary of Reformed Protestant theology. Calvin’s four books cover the knowledge of God the Creator, the knowledge of God the Redeemer, the way in which we receive the grace of Christ, and the external means (church, ministry, sacraments) by which God invites us into the society of Christ and keeps us therein.] Rebecca S. Chopp and Mark Lewis Taylor, eds., Reconstructing Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). [An older work of essays on a variety of liberationist and contextual themes in theology.] Werner Elert, The Christian Faith: An Outline of Lutheran Dogmatics, 5th edn, trans. Martin H. Bertram and Walter R. Bouman (St. Louis: n.p., 1974). [The most important summary of Lutheran-Protestant theology to be published in the midtwentieth century. It was originally published in German in 1940. Elert represents a classic form of Lutheran law-gospel systematic theology. Elert begins with human understanding under the hidden God, the basis of the church’s proclamation of law and gospel, the triune God, God and creation, reconciliation (including chapters on the sacraments), the church, and eschatology.] Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, eds., Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011). [A good college-level introduction to Christian systematic theology by a collection of leading Roman Catholic theologians. After an introduction on the task and methods of systematic theology, the book has chapters on faith and revelation, God and the Trinity, creation, Jesus Christ, church, sin and grace, the communion of saints and Mariology, the seven sacraments, and eschatology.] John Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces, multiple vols, ed. Benjamin T. Mays, trans. Richard Dinda (St. Louis: Concordia, 2006–). [An English translation of one of the greatest multivolume works in the history of systematic theology, a classic Lutheran exposition from the seventeenth century.] Brian A. Gerrish, Christian Faith: Dogmatics in Outline (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2015). [This work represents the culmination of three decades of teaching Christian theology at the University of Chicago by one of the leading Reformed theologians of the past half century. Gerrish’s two main guides are Calvin and Schleiermacher, but he is constantly examining how classic Christian teachings need to be formulated and understood today. The work is organized around the traditional themes of creation and redemption.] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). [A major summary of the Christian faith by a leading American evangelical Protestant theologian. Grenz examines the doctrines about God, humanity, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, and eschatology.] Douglas John Hall, Christian Theology in a North American Context, 3 vols (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991–6). [The title here is actually the subtitle to each of

457

458

Fundamental Theology

the three volumes: Thinking the Faith, Professing the Faith, and Confessing the Faith. Volume 1 analyzes the late-twentieth-century North American context and sets forth the basic methods in systematic theology from a liberationist perspective. The final two volumes explore God, creation, redemption, the church, and Christian hope from that same point of view.] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: Wakeman Trust, 1950). [A compendium of classic Reformed-Protestant teachings about the principal Christian doctrines.] Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997– 9). [Jenson’s work focuses on the triune identity of God and then upon the works of God, creation, creatures, the church, and the fulfillment of creation.] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd edn (New York: Longman, 1972). [A classic historical and theological analysis of the rise of credal statements in early Christianity, focusing especially on the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds.] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 2nd edn (New York: Harper & Row, 1960). [This work is still one of the best brief introductions to basic Christian teachings in the first five centuries of Christianity.] Janice McRandal, Christian Doctrine and the Grammar of Difference: A Contribution to Feminist Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). [An excellent example of a feminist approach to classical Christian themes of creation, sin, and redemption.] Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). [A venerable college-level introduction to basic Christian teaching from a Reformed Protestant perspective. Migliore covers revelation, Scripture, the triune God, creation, evil and providence, sin and the new being in Christ, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, church, sacraments, ministry, Christianity among the world’s religions, and Christian hope.] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vols trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991–3). [The most significant summary of the Christian faith in the past half century. Pannenberg was one of the top Protestant theologians in the world in the second half of the twentieth century. His project begins with the proposition that the truth of Christian doctrine is the theme of systematic theology. The work then analyzes the concept of God, the reality of God, the revelation of God, the triune God, the doctrine of creation, theological anthropology, the person and work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God, the church, sacraments, ministry, election and history, and eschatology.] Richard J. Plantinga, Thomas R. Thompson, and Matthew D. Lundberg, An Introduction to Christian Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). [An excellent college-level textbook that covers all the important themes in Christian theology from a Reformed Protestant perspective: revelation, the triune God, creation, theological anthropology, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, salvation, the church, Christianity in a global context, and Christian hope.] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith (the edition of 1830–1), 2 vols, ed. Catherine L. Kelsey and Terrence N. Tice, trans. Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and

Key Themes in Special Revelation

Edwina Lawler (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2016). [The classic restatement of the Christian faith by the father of liberal Protestantism.] Edmund Schlink, Ecumenical Dogmatics (1983), 1 vol. in 2 bks, ed. Matthew L. Becker, trans. Matthew L. Becker, Robin Lutjohann, Hans G. Spalteholz, Mark A. Seifrid, Eleanor Wegener, and Ken Jones (Göttingen: Brill/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023). [Originally published in German in 1983, this work provides a major summary of Christian teaching by one of the most important Lutheran-Christian ecumenists of the twentieth century. Schlink brings Eastern and Western traditions of Christian theology into conversation with one another. His work is divided in an unusual manner in four uneven parts: the gospel of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of redemption, the doctrine of the new creation, and the doctrine of God. I have provided editorial notes throughout the work to explain key concepts and give background information.] Heinrich Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church, 3rd edn, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1899). [A compendium of classic Lutheran-Protestant teachings about the principal Christian doctrines, based on statements from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theologians.] Katherine Sonderegger, Systematic Theology, 2 vols (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015–20). [A monumental work in progress by a leading contemporary American Christian theologian. These two volumes are full of fresh biblical insights about the doctrine of God and trinitarian theology.] Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite and Mary Potter Engel, eds., Lift Every Voice: Constructing Christian Theologies from the Underside, rev. edn (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2007). [An important textbook of systematic theology written from a liberationist perspective by a wide assortment of theologians.] Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologiae, trans. the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947). [Originally written between 1265 and 1274, this work represents the pinnacle of medieval Roman Catholic theology.] Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951– 63). [One of the most famous and influential presentations of Christian teaching by one of the most famous Christians of the twentieth century. Tillich’s system begins with an exploration of reason and revelation and the being of God. The system then proceeds to analyze human existence and the reality of Jesus Christ and the new being in him. The work concludes by discussing life and the Spirit, the trinitarian symbols, history, and the kingdom of God.]

God the Creator Ian McFarland, ed., Creation and Humanity (Louisville: John Knox/Westminster, 2009). [An excellent collection of classic and contemporary readings on “creation” and “human beings” by Christian theologians.] Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (New York: Harper & Row, 1985). [Moltmann’s Gifford Lectures that set forth an “ecological doctrine of creation.” He treats such topics as

459

460

Fundamental Theology

God the Creator, time and space, heaven, evolution, the image of God in human beings, and the eschatological future of creation.] Michael Welker, Creation and Reality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). [An important, if brief, engagement with a contemporary theological understanding of the first two chapters in Genesis, with God as the Creator, the image of God in human beings, sin, “the fall,” and the hope of creation.] Gustaf Wingren, Creation and Law, trans. Ross MacKenzie (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961). [A classic study of creation, human beings, the divine law, sin, and the gospel by an important Scandinavian Lutheran theologian.] See also the bibliography on theology and the natural sciences at the end of Chapter 15.

Theological anthropology Thomas Albert Howard, ed., Imago Dei: Human Dignity in Ecumenical Perspective (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2013). [A collection of essays on human dignity, written by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars.] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, 2 vols (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1941–3). [Niebuhr, who is the father of modern Christian social ethics in the United States, delivered these Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh during the Second World War. They remain a classic Protestant theological accounting of human beings, their creation, their sin, their history.] Hans Schwarz, The Human Being: A Theological Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). [An excellent analysis of human uniqueness, human freedom, and human community.]

Christology and soteriology Gerhard Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction to His Thought, trans. R. A. Wilson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 110–24. [This chapter in Ebeling’s book provides a clear and concise summary of Luther’s understanding of the gospel.] Werner Elert, Law and Gospel, trans. Edward Schroeder (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967). [A key essay by a principal German Lutheran theologian who opposed Barth’s reversal of “law and gospel” and who stressed the sharp distinction between the law, which always accuses human sinners, and the gospel, which promises them forgiveness and salvation.] Gerhard Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation 1518 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). [An excellent treatise on the insights of Luther’s theology of the cross for our contemporary world. This work complements and slightly corrects Hall’s book further on.] Douglas John Hall, The Cross in Our Context: Jesus and the Suffering World (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003). [A brief, compelling distillation of reflections on Christian theology by one of the most important recent theologians of the cross.] Rienk Lanooy, ed., For Us and for Our Salvation: Seven Perspectives on Christian Soteriology (Utrecht-Leiden: Interuniversitair Instituut voor Missiologie en

Key Themes in Special Revelation

Oecuemenica, 1994). [Essays on the theme of salvation by scholars from Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, and Pentecostal backgrounds.] Jonathan A. Linebaugh, ed., God’s Two Words: Law and Gospel in the Lutheran and Reformed Traditions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018). [A collection of essays on law and gospel by contemporary Lutheran and Reformed theologians.] Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology 1750–1990, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). [A very helpful overview of the principal views toward Jesus that have been taken by German Protestant theologians in the past 300 years, from Reimarus through Barth and Bultmann to Moltmann and Jüngel.] Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (New York: Harper & Row, 1974). [One of the most discussed books on christology from the past half century.] Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). [A good overview of christology from a Roman Catholic perspective.] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 2nd edn, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977). [A basic and widely read introduction to issues in christology.] Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). [An accessible survey of basic understandings of Jesus in key periods of church history.] Peter Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology, trans. Everett R. Kalin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). [A set of essays by a major NT scholar that explore the nature of reconciliation as gospel within the apostolic witness to Jesus.]

The Holy Spirit Yves M. J. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3 vols, trans. David Smith (New York: Seabury, 1983). [An exhaustive study of the Holy Spirit by one of the most important Roman Catholic theologians of the twentieth century.] Alasdair I. C. Heron, The Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983). [A classic study of the Holy Spirit by a Reformed Protestant theologian. Still the best place to begin one’s overview of this focus in Christian theology.] Jürgen Moltmann, The Source of Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997). [A major examination of this topic in Christian theology by a leading German Protestant theologian.]

Trinitarian theology Stanley Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004). [A good starting point for understanding the various options in contemporary trinitarian theology.]

461

462

Fundamental Theology

Robert Jenson, The Triune Identity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982). [Along with Jenson’s chapter on the triune God in the dogmatics textbook that he and his friend Carl Braaten edited, this book contributed significantly to the renaissance in trinitarian theology that has taken place since the ground-breaking works by Karl Barth and Karl Rahner.] Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity & Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991). [Still the best one-volume historical overview and creative restatement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the English language. LaCugna’s work is clear and informative.] Jürgen Moltmann, History and the Triune God, trans. John Bowden (New York: Crossroad, 1992). [This book contains Moltmann’s main essays and dialogues he has had on the doctrine of the Trinity. These works set forth his unique “social model” of the Trinity.] Ted Peters, God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993). [Offers a map of contemporary perspectives on the Trinity as well as Peters’ own creative restatement of this classic Christian doctrine.] Christoph Schwöbel, ed., Trinitarian Theology Today (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995). [A set of essays by figures who have helped to further the renaissance in trinitarian theology.] Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). [A sequel to his earlier work on the coherence of theism. This book sets forth basic Christian ideas about God, e.g., God’s properties, the divine nature, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the incarnation of the Logos.] Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). [This work provides an excellent explanation and defense of the classical attributes of God as Christians understand God, e.g., God’s omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, eternity, and immutability.]

The church, sacraments, and ministry Louis Bouyer, Word, Church, and Sacraments: In Protestantism and Catholicism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2004). [A brief but useful introduction to the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants on the issues of “church” and “sacraments.”] Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (New York: Doubleday, 1974). [A classic study by an important American Roman Catholic theologian that sets forth five different models or ways in which people have understood the Christian church: as institution, mystical communion, sacrament, herald, and servant.] Frank Senn, Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). [This excellent work offers an historical and theological analysis of Christian worship. It is the best one-volume study of Christian worship by a Lutheran theologian in the English language.] See also the documents that emerged from the official North American dialogues between Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians (1965–present). The second

Key Themes in Special Revelation

through fourth official dialogues addressed differences and agreements on the doctrines of the church and the sacraments (Baptism, the Eucharist as Sacrifice, and Eucharist and Ministry).

Eschatology Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1964). [A classic investigation of the NT’s teaching about the resurrection of the body.] David Bentley Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021). [On the basis of the earliest Christian writings, theological tradition, Scripture, and logic, Hart argues a controversial yet hopeful thesis, that “if God is the good Creator of all, he is the Savior of all, without fail.” One of the most discussed theological books of recent years.] Gerhard Sauter, What Dare We Hope? Reconsidering Eschatology, trans. Judith Gilliland and Caroline Schröder (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 1999). [An excellent overview of basic themes in Christian eschatology.] N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008). [While many scholars do not agree with Wright’s reconstruction of heaven as “temporary,” nor do they accept his notion that God’s new creation is fully continuous with our present world, his book offers insights into Christian eschatology that are worth pondering.]

463

464

Part III Christian Theology within the University

466

12 Christian Theology as a University Discipline This chapter begins by situating Christian theology within the broad history of the development of the university as an institution. The chapter then explains the purpose and genre of theological encyclopedia and summarizes how some theologians have divided theology into several disciplines and subdisciplines.

Placing Christian theology within a university Christian theology has been an integral scholarly discipline within European universities since the earliest ones were founded in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.1 Their formation was itself a further development of an older Christian institution, the so-called “cathedral school,” which had been established through educational reforms during the reign of Charlemagne (d. 814) at the end of the eighth century.2 These changes led to a closer interaction between Christian theology, wisdom from other religious traditions (particularly Judaism and Islam), and the other scholarly disciplines that had grown out of classical antiquity (Greece and Rome). Prior to the Carolingian reforms, theological study took place in monasteries and the households of individual Christian bishops and priests. Medieval universities carried these traditions forward when they established theology as one of the higher faculties, alongside law and medicine. These three 1. For an overall history of the institution of the university in Europe, see Walter Rüegg, ed., A History of the University in Europe, 4 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992–2011). 2. For the rise of medieval universities in the shadows of the great cathedral schools, see David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 2nd edn, ed. D. E. Luscombe and C. N. L. Brooke (London: Longman, 1988), 139–66.

468

Fundamental Theology

higher disciplines were themselves based on the lower faculties, the arts and letters, which equipped students to think carefully and logically, to read critically, to write well, and to speak persuasively. This preliminary “arts course” would ideally liberate individuals from ignorance and prejudice and equip them to become free citizens (Latin: liber = “free,” “independent”). The seven liberal arts (“freeing arts”), as they were conceived at the time, defined this education: grammar, rhetoric, logic [the trivium], and arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy [the quadrivium]). Upon completion of that preliminary arts course, a student of theology would undertake a course of study that typically lasted a further eight or more years. Within this medieval setting, scholars such as Aquinas argued that Christian theology is a science, at least in the Aristotelian sense of a form of systematic knowledge (and not in the modern sense of “natural science”), since it aspires to set forth a rational presentation of the content of divine revelation. According to Aquinas, scholarly theology has its proper grounding in divine revelation, which serves as its basic or axiomatic principle, yet one may rationally investigate that revelation and articulate its content in accordance with Aristotelian philosophical categories.3 In the view of medieval theologians who were influenced by Aquinas, this rational presentation gives theology its scientific or scholarly character. The historical research of Swiss sociologist Walter Rüegg (1918–2015) confirms that core Christian beliefs served as the most important presuppositions of the medieval university itself. They included beliefs about God the Creator of the universe, about human beings who are created in the image of God and who can investigate the divinely created order of the universe through their God-given reason, about human sin and divine redemption, and about the connection between knowledge, wisdom, virtue, and faith. These basic Christian beliefs helped to make medieval universities places where people could pursue certain fundamental goals: • the rational investigation of God’s creation; • the cultivation of basic ethical principles and the intellectual virtues of humility, reverence, and self-criticism; • the fostering of respect for the dignity and freedom of the individual human being; • the encouragement of rigorous public arguments that appeal to demonstrated knowledge and the rules of evidence; • and the pursuit of knowledge as a public good in and of itself that cannot be reduced to mere economic value.4

3. See Aquinas, ST, I.1.2–8. 4. Walter Rüegg, “Themes,” in A History of the University in Europe, 1.3–34. These themes are summarized in David Ford, Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 307.

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

While other rationales have replaced the Christian theological underpinnings of these medieval principles (at least in secular, public universities), many institutions of higher education still pursue the goals themselves.5 Despite its historic place within the oldest universities, Christian theology has become more and more marginalized in higher education over the past four hundred years. That process had already begun prior to the Protestant Reformation, as humanism (a movement promoting studies focusing on literature and the arts) and interest in classical antiquity supplanted medieval scholasticism and forms of philosophical (Aristotelian) theology that seemed esoteric and far removed from human life. Instead of debating complex metaphysical questions, scholars (often outside of authoritarian and church-controlled universities) began to study the world and human beings for their own sakes and to be critical of ecclesiastical control of human educational institutions. That process of marginalizing theology in intellectual life only intensified in subsequent centuries. The principal reasons for this further development have already been identified in earlier chapters. Not only has Christian theology played a negative role in suppressing and attacking legitimate scientific knowledge (think of how medieval religious leaders reacted to Galileo’s defense of the theory of Copernicus or how some Christian theologians have attacked the Darwinian theory of evolution), but it has also allowed itself to be guided by ecclesial, authoritarian interests that have run contrary to truly open, scholarly inquiry. “All too often the church and theology have closed themselves to the progress of scholarly knowledge and have suppressed the truth until the artificial dam bursts again and the stream of true insight can no longer be stopped.”6 One response to this sad state of affairs was the radical solution of eighteenthcentury French revolutionaries, who tried to abolish all Christian-based universities in France. They attempted to establish new academic institutions grounded entirely on their ideological conceptions of secular reason. In Germany, at that time, Johann Fichte (1762–1814) argued that the new University of Berlin, which he helped to found in 1810, should also exclude theology in favor of disciplines entirely guided by rational scientific inquiry and scholarly methods of research.7 Only through the persuasive argument of another key founder, Friedrich Schleiermacher, did that university include theology as one of the professional, practical disciplines.8

5. Ford, Christian Wisdom, 308. 6. Ebeling, The Study of Theology, 81–2. 7. See Johann G. Fichte, Introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre and Other Writings, ed. and trans. Daniel Breazeale (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994). 8. For a helpful summary and analysis of Schleiermacher’s crucial role in the founding of the University of Berlin, see Richard Crouter, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Between Enlightenment and Romanticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 140–68.

469

470

Fundamental Theology

Nevertheless scholars in the tradition of Fichte have continued to question the place of theology in any university. Authoritarian churches and poor theologies are not entirely to blame for this criticism and the marginalization of theology as an academic discipline. Skepticism about religious knowledge, including the theology of Christianity, has also been a factor within a broader secularization that has been taking place within universities (if not entirely in Western cultures) since the time of the Enlightenment. Over the past two hundred years a very narrow definition of what constitutes “knowledge” has been put forth within academic communities, and this too has led not only to strong criticisms of religious ideas, including specifically Christian theology, but also to the marginalization of the humanities, philosophy, and the fine arts within many institutions of higher learning.9 In this view “knowledge” is only that which can be empirically verified, mathematically measured, and humanly controlled. Such knowledge is valuable only to the extent that it serves individual, economic, utilitarian gain. Such knowledge is frequently divorced from larger questions about wisdom, truth, human understanding, and the common good. This narrowing of the notion of what constitutes knowledge has coincided with the expansion of ever narrower fields of study. This development fits with a mindset that views college or university as providing people with the basic minimum they need to know in order to get a degree, so that they can become more marketable in business or some other practical vocation, such as engineering, nursing, or business. The humanistic disciplines, including philosophy and theology, often do not factor favorably in that view of higher education. Not surprisingly, since 1970 the more higher education has expanded in America, the more the humanities have contracted in relation to all other disciplines. Because of market and economic pressures, not only have many colleges and universities become big companies with brand names, but some have also become largely vocational training centers for these practical jobs or careers. Even at major “research universities,” where the advancement of scientific knowledge (and some other kinds) is the overwhelming paradigm and institutional focus, the humanities play a relatively minor role in the education of students. Of course, administrators of small to medium-sized universities have felt the need to cut the humanities even further in order to attract as many students as possible to 9. Church-related colleges and universities also face these pressures. In 2023 the president of Valparaiso University announced his and the university board’s decision to deaccession three masterpiece paintings from that university’s art museum to pay for dormitory renovations. In my judgment, this decision ran contrary to Valparaiso’s mission and its historic commitment to the humanities and the fine arts. For more details on this controversy, see my blog posts: https://mat​thew​lbec​ker.blogs​pot.com/2023/02/stop-sale.html and subsequent blog posts about the matter: https://mat​thew​lbec​ker.blogs​pot.com/2023/03/a-new-york-times-arti​ cle-on-valpo.html and https://mat​thew​lbec​ker.blogs​pot.com/2023/03/a-new-repub​lic-arti​cle-on-cont​rove​rsy. html (all accessed on July 28, 2023).

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

their institution’s professional-degree programs. The liberal arts have become more and more marginalized on many college campuses across the United States. Because of dwindling enrollments and the rising costs associated with higher education, many small and medium-sized religiously related colleges and universities close every year. Despite the numerous efforts since the eighteenth century to remove Christian theology from modern universities—Fichte’s attempt is illustrative—it continues to be a recognized scholarly field among the higher faculties in contemporary universities (divinity schools), seminaries, and graduate institutions. The principal European universities still support separate theology faculties (a few are exclusively Protestant or Catholic, while several are more ecumenical) and they prepare future church leaders for service in churches that value well-educated clergy, some of which have historically been supported by the state. Schleiermacher’s model for the University of Berlin is still largely in place throughout Europe. Unlike the model of the university in revolutionary France, the Berlin model “tried both to do justice to reason and to engage constructively with religion as it was found in Prussia at the time.”10 Such a model, which has had an impact on American universities, values academic freedom in all university disciplines and understands the university itself to be a place of interdisciplinary teaching and research in the arts, humanities, and the sciences. While the goal of treasuring and passing on knowledge and wisdom from the past has become much less of a priority in American higher education— where the dominant paradigm maintains that almost all “knowledge” from previous eras is largely outdated and merely a matter of antiquarian interest—some liberal arts universities still seek to transmit what is valuable from the past, while striving to be open to innovation and advances in knowledge and understanding. In America, where constitutional issues regarding “church and state” come into play (often quite confusedly and awkwardly), Christian theology also remains an important academic discipline, if mostly in private divinity schools and church-related colleges and seminaries. Still, even in America, academic theology also takes place in public, nonreligiously affiliated institutions of higher education. In fact, despite the widespread secularization that has occurred in American higher education over the past 150 years, the presence of Christian theology in public universities is more noticeable today than it was even two decades ago.11 This is the case both formally (e.g., in optional courses in religious studies, psychology of religion, sociology of religion, philosophy of religion) and informally (e.g., when students and faculty raise properly theological issues in courses or research or in relation to on-campus religiously based student activities). That religion has not gone away in Western culture, that it has undergone transformation and renewal in ways that were largely unexpected two and three decades ago among sociologists, that it remains a vital 10. Ford, Christian Wisdom, 312. 11. See Jacobsen and Jacobsen, No Longer Invisible, 3–15.

471

472

Fundamental Theology

force to be reckoned with in the world, and that it is still a “live option” on college campuses—all of these developments have led many to reassess earlier theories about “inevitable secularization.”12 Students from all over the world are flocking to American universities, and they are bringing their religious beliefs, practices, and understandings with them. These often clash in creative ways with other religious (and nonreligious) beliefs, especially when students talk about matters of “ultimate concern,” truth, the way things are, and the way they should be. Recent surveys of college and university faculty further indicate the importance that knowledge about God (“theology”) or “a Higher Power” and spiritual matters has among educational leaders, even if most try to keep these views private or concealed from others. According to the research of American sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, while atheism and agnosticism are more common among professors than within the US adult population as a whole, religious skepticism represents a minority position, even among professors who teach at elite research universities.13 According to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey, 33 percent of American scientists said they believed in the reality of God.14 Eighteen percent of scientists indicated they did not believe in “God,” but they did believe in “a universal spirit or higher power.” At that time, only 41 percent of American scientists said they did not believe in God or “a universal spirit or higher power.” While surely that latter percentage has gone up considerably in the past fifteen years, “religion” on college campuses has not disappeared. The persistence of religious practices, of religious questioning and questing, of pursuing spiritual and theological answers within the context of learning, suggests that thinking about these matters will continue to remain an aspect of American higher education, both public and private, for the foreseeable future. Despite all this, the inclusion of academic theology in undergraduate higher education should not be based merely on sociological data. The discipline itself is worthy of scholarly investigation for reasons that were set forth in the introductory chapter and Chapter 3. Within undergraduate institutions, whether public or private, Christian theology fits within the larger framework of the humanities, which seek to further human self-understanding and the cultural understandings that have been transmitted by human beings.15 The place of theology here fits within the 12. See especially Peter Berger, The Desecularization of the World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). 13. Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “The Religiosity of American College and University Professors,” Sociology of Religion (May 2009): 101–29. 14. “Scientists and Belief ” (November 5, 2009), https://www.pewr​esea​rch.org/relig​ion/2009/11/05/sci​enti​ sts-and-bel​ief/ (accessed June 7, 2023). 15. The term humanities has had different meanings since the days when Cicero first used the term humanitas to refer to the education of a public official. In the second century Aulus Gallius identified this term with the Greek concept of paideia, the liberal education that prepared an individual for citizenship and public service. Hence the rise of a formal “encyclopedia,” that is, “the circle of learning” that was necessary for such preparation. Fifteenth-century Italian humanists revitalized this understanding, as did other European

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

overall concern to investigate human beings, their histories/stories, their creative and cultural achievements, their self-understandings and social organization. Theology continually raises the question about “the whole person,” human meaning, the purpose of human beings, and how humans should live. But this placement of theology within the humanities also reflects the fact that Christian theology is more than merely “the study of God,” as Christians understand God, and includes reflection on human self-understanding, human religious experiences, the study of world religions (in dialogue with Christian theology), and the transmission of human religious traditions and practices. Theology is also about the transmissions of cultural values that are worth treasuring and passing on to the next generation. As has already been suggested in the introduction, theology has often been subsumed under the category of religious studies within the humanities. Some scholars of religion see no real difference between theology and this broader discipline since for them all religious phenomena are to be studied according to the same critical methods that are used to study any other natural and human phenomena. Others try to maintain a sharp distinction between theology and religious studies, since the former is about matters of ultimate truth, the reality of God, and the world as it is given, while religious studies is about all the world’s religions, however they are finally defined, and how they are interpreted through lenses and theories from humancentered disciplines such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology. Within the American context, especially in public universities, the actual practice of theology is almost entirely subsumed under these human-centered disciplines. Still other scholars argue that the two disciplines are not the same, yet need each other to offer important corrections and limitations to their specific methods and scholarly understandings. This latter approach has advantages, for it recognizes an important relationship between theology and religious studies while seeking to maintain the distinctive

humanists in the following century. That notion persisted through the eighteenth century. In the nineteenth century the humanities were viewed in opposition to the natural sciences. In Germany at that time a distinction was developed between the Geisteswissenschaften (literally the “spiritual” or “intellectual sciences,” i.e., the “human sciences”) and the Naturwissenschaften, “the natural sciences.” The former were understood to be beyond the reach of the latter. More recently, scholars have distinguished between a narrower definition of “the humanities” and the “human” or “social sciences.” While in our time the natural and human sciences are looking to explain fully everything, including everything human, others point out that the natural and human sciences themselves have had a history, that human ideologies have significantly shaped their execution, and that there is more to human beings and their culture than can be fully explained by the natural and human sciences. For our purposes here I am using the term humanities quite broadly to refer to humankind’s creative, cultural legacy that has been handed down through the visual arts (including painting, sculpture, photography, and film), music, the performing arts, architecture, literature, poetry, the religions, philosophy, theology, and history (at least as a literary form).

473

474

Fundamental Theology

approach and concerns of each. Within public, non-church-related institutions, Christian theology would most likely have to be a subdiscipline of religious studies and could itself be further divided into specific theological or metaphysical traditions of reflection. Within church-related schools, which would likely have a preferred religious tradition, religious studies and theology could actually be two different if closely related departments. Whether as a separate department or as a subdiscipline within religious studies, theology would welcome, explore, and argue about questions of ultimate truth and meaning, and it likely would not try “to explain them away” by means of those primary scholarly methods used within religious studies and other humanistic disciplines. Such a view would allow for Jewish theology within Jewish Studies, Muslim theology within Islamic Studies, and so on. In this way the particularities of specific theologies and practices are allowed to stand on their own as subjects of study without necessarily transposing them into an overarching and problematic theory of “religion” and explaining them away in purely naturalistic and humanistic terms. Regardless of where Christian theology is finally located within the humanities, how it is structured and organized as a university discipline is a further important question. What are the constitutive elements of Christian theology and how do they relate to each other as a unified whole? These questions have traditionally been answered by Christian theologians under the category of “theological encyclopedia.”

Theological encyclopedia Humanist scholars in the fifteenth century created the Latin word encyclopedia, which itself is based on a Greek phrase, the “circle of learning” (enkyklios paideia), that referred to “the circle of arts and sciences considered by the Greeks as essential to a liberal education.”16 A young Greek would have to pass through this “circle” before he could undertake more specialized studies or become a public official. As we have already noted, within the medieval period, especially under the influence of Augustine, the development of the so-called “liberal arts” provided the foundation for the further study of one of the higher disciplines, namely, theology, medicine, or law. This conception of a foundational, preparatory “circle [of learning] for young people” was already at work in the theology of Clement of Alexandria, who sought an all-embracing knowledge of everything known in his day, which included especially the knowledge of the Logos of God (theologia). Later, the term encyclopedia was used to describe introductory accounts of all the known knowledge in a given academic field. Within the medieval period the synthesis 16. OED, 512.

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

of Greek philosophy and Christian theology provided an encyclopedic orientation to Christian theology, a synthesis that was still evident in the writings of Renaissance humanists and post-Reformation Christian humanism. Some contemporary scholars have wryly noted that Aquinas might have been the last human being who was able to organize in his head all the known knowledge of his day, both scientific and philosophical/theological. Goethe’s literary character of Faust represents the end of that illusion: “I’ve studied now, to my regret, philosophy, law, medicine and—what is worse—theology from end to end with diligence, yet here I am, a wretched fool and still no wiser than before.”17 During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries several efforts were made to compile a comprehensive account of all (European) human knowledge, which either excluded or criticized that which was deemed superstitious or outmoded, such as religious knowledge and theology. Perhaps the most famous example of this approach is the eighteenth-century Encyclopédie by Denis Diderot (1713–84) and his associates, whose anti-Christian animosity appears throughout its pages. Georg Hegel’s nineteenth-century Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences—which still had a theological flavor to its contents, since its author thought that learning was incomplete without understanding theology—might very well be the last attempt by a single thinker to try to summarize the whole of human knowledge.18 Hegel and his contemporary Friedrich W. J. Schelling (1775–1854) still reflected the ideal of Clement, in that they sought a comprehensive, historical understanding of reality.19 Today, all such projects are criticized as much for their partiality and incompleteness as for their authors’ biases, hubris, and short-sightedness—despite their best efforts at comprehensiveness. Even the modern editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which includes many articles of a theological nature, frankly acknowledge the essential, temporal, and spatial limitations of their work. These same limitations are evident in the standard encyclopedia of religious studies, the fourth edition of the thirteen-volume Religion Past and Present. Its 15,000 entries (over 8 million words)

17. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust I and II, in Goethe: The Collected Works, vol. 2, ed. and trans. Stuart Atkins (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), Part I, lines 355–9 (trans. modified). 18. Georg Hegel, Enzylopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften [Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences], published as System der Philosophie [System of Philosophy] (1817; 2nd edn, 1827–30), 4th edn, in Sämtliche Werke [Collected Works], vols 8–10, ed. H. Glockner (Stuttgart: F. Frommann, 1964–5). For the English translations of this three-part work, see The Logic of Hegel, 2nd edn, trans. William Wallace (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963); The Philosophy of Nature, trans. Arnold V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970); and Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind, trans. Arnold V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971). 19. For the influence of Schelling’s idealist philosophy on German Protestant theology, see Becker, The Self-Giving God and Salvation History, 110–18; and the entry on Schelling by Johannes Zachhuber in ODCC, 2.1740–1.

475

476

Fundamental Theology

nevertheless provide helpful introductions to the basic topics in this large and complex academic field, at least as of the year 2000. While most scholars acknowledge that it is simply impossible to gather all human religious and theological knowledge, let alone all contemporary human knowledge, into one set of books or even into one internet database, many now affirm that academic knowledge cannot perforce exclude religious and theological understandings. Religious studies and theology are to be found within the circle of arts and sciences as critical, humanistic, interdisciplinary fields of study—“critical” in the methodological sense of this term, which gained currency through Kant’s philosophy. Already in the eighteenth century, when the complexity of the study of theology began to be felt more acutely, there developed in Europe a distinct genre of theological reflection, which is usually called theological encyclopedia, whose purpose is not to give an alphabetized summary of the various bits and pieces of theological knowledge but to provide a rationale for the discipline as a whole within the academy, to offer an introduction to its disciplines and subdisciplines, and to highlight ongoing problems within the discipline of theology as a whole.20 Works of this kind in North America have been few in number and all have been oriented toward graduate-level theological education of future church leaders. The dearth of such resources for undergraduate students is unfortunate, since beginning students of theology are often confused and bewildered by the large and complex range of resources within the diverse subdisciplines of Christian theology. They could benefit from a general description of its essential and basic shape, a description, which, by definition, is a severe restriction and limitation of theological knowledge but one which is necessary so that the beginning student has a basic framework in which to begin. One has to start somewhere. One does so, recognizing that every attempt at describing theology as an academic discipline, including the one set forth in this book, is partial, incomplete, and inevitably somewhat subjective. Since the rationale for theology as an undergraduate academic discipline has already been given in earlier chapters, the focus of this chapter is on the second problem addressed by a theological encyclopedia, namely, the structure of Christian theology as an academic discipline. On the one hand, Christian theology is aimed toward the past, since it takes its basic orientation from the revelation that has 20. See Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 73–124; Edward Farley, The Fragility of Knowledge: Theological Education in the Church and the University (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); and Howard, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University, 303–23. Farley is especially helpful in highlighting the tension between the expansion of specialization within all university disciplines and the need for a synthesizing of knowledge across the disciplines for the sake of fostering human community and the public good. I have benefited greatly from his reflections on the place of Christian theology within a university curriculum.

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

occurred in relation to the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. This past orientation means that theology cannot uncritically allow the present situation to undermine or even eliminate the basic claims within the historical revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus. On the other hand, Christian theology is aimed toward the contemporary ecumenical and intellectual situation in which the claims of a Christian theology of revelation are analyzed and evaluated. This orientation toward the present situation means that theology cannot merely repeat what Christians have said in the past without attending to changes in the cultural and intellectual situation between present believers and all past manifestations of Christian faith and theology. Furthermore, within a university context, Christian theology is also undertaken in view of all the other academic disciplines—including especially those that overlap its own subject matter or whose methods, such as those used in history, psychology, and sociology, are also used by scholars of theology. In this undergraduate setting, Christian theology is naturally done in ecumenical conversation with people from the major branches of the Christian tradition, people from other religious traditions, and people from intellectual traditions that are critical of “religion” and metaphysics. This academic and ecumenical orientation also impacts the theological task and its execution. The division of Christian theology into subdisciplines (and subdisciplines of these) thus follows from both the subject matter of theology, which demands attention to past and present understandings of the revelation of God, and the comprehensiveness of theology, which leads to a division of responsibilities and the use of multiple methods and resources within the theological task.

Dividing theology We noted in Chapter 2 that already in the ancient world a Stoic philosopher, Panaetius (d. 110 BC), had divided philosophical theology into three distinct parts or functions: (1) mythological theology, which maintained and interpreted the stories about the gods from ancient Greece; (2) natural theology, which reasoned about God or the gods on the basis of the world or universe and was often critical of the ancient myths as fictional and unethical; and (3) civil theology, which served to understand and perform the rites and ceremonies in the Roman civic cult, and often to justify the political regime. Several Christian theologians in the early church, such as Tertullian and Augustine, adapted this threefold division for their own purposes, but obviously the distinctions among the parts were understood differently. Generally, the first division focused on biblical interpretation, the second offered philosophical exploration of Christian teaching, and the third was oriented toward the practical arts of Christian ministry

477

478

Fundamental Theology

(spiritual care, preaching, sacramental theology, and so on). Despite this threefold distinction, most early Christian theologians typically referred to theology as a single intellectual enterprise that uncovered the truth and wisdom of God, which cultivated holiness, and that aimed toward the salvation of human beings. This understanding of theology as a unitary intellectual discipline persisted into the medieval period. At the University of Paris, Aquinas spoke of theology as “sacred doctrine” (sacra doctrina) or sacred teaching.21 Much earlier, Augustine had used similar words as well.22 Three hundred years after Aquinas, at the University of Wittenberg, Melanchthon identified the gospel as “the most important topic of Christian teaching,” what he called “the doctrine of the gospel” (doctrina evangelii).23 For him, all theology centers around the crucial teaching of the gospel about Jesus Christ, but it may make frequent use of philosophy to explain the various articles of faith in service to the gospel.24 Throughout these medieval centuries, theology was often called “the queen of the sciences,” ruling above the liberal arts and the faculty of law. In this context, university theology was guided by reigning philosophical conceptions about knowledge and methodology, largely of an Aristotelian nature. As a result, theological inquiry was freely undertaken apart from the interference of church officials, but its goal was still the same as it had been since the time of the apostles, namely, the pursuit of divine wisdom and saving knowledge. This was the model of university theology, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, until the end of the seventeenth century.25 The division of theology into academic subdisciplines or specialties is a posteighteenth-century phenomenon, occasioned by those who wanted to give a scholarly account of theological encyclopedia for university students in the wake of Enlightenment critiques of religion, the rise of the modern sciences, and the 21. See, for example, Aquinas, ST, I.1.1–8. 22. For example, in his treatise on the doctrine of the Trinity, Augustine makes a distinction between “wisdom,” which he defines as “the contemplation of eternal things” (or “the contemplation of God”) and “knowledge,” which “belongs to action,” to “temporal things,” to the avoidance of evil, and to the seeking of what is good (Augustine, The Trinity, XII.22, WSA, I/5.334). Cf. Augustine, Teaching Christianity, I.1–21, WSA, I/11.106–15. 23. Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV.2, BC, 120. According to the Augsburg Confession, “It is sufficient for the true unity of the church to agree concerning the teaching of the gospel [doctrina evangelii] and the administration of the sacraments” (Augsburg Confession, VII.2, BC, 43). 24. Cf. the central loci on the gospel and the forgiveness of sins in Melanchthon’s Loci Communes (1555), 141–57. 25. See especially Farley, Theologia, 1–39. For the further unfolding of the discussion about theological education in the United States that was begun with Farley’s 1983 work, see David H. Kelsey, Between Athens and Jerusalem: The Theological Education Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); and Sarah Coakley, “Shaping the Field: A Transatlantic Perspective,” in Fields of Faith: Theology and Religious Studies for the Twenty-first Century, ed. David F. Ford, Ben Quash, and Janet Martin Soskice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 39–55.

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

historical-critical investigation of Christian sources (apart from the influence and control of church officials). As noted in Chapter 2, post-Enlightenment university professors (like Semler) began to study the Christian Scriptures like all other ancient documents and to use universal and historical-critical principles to study the origins of Christianity as a purely historical phenomenon. Within a short period of time, all aspects of the Christian religion were being studied with the same presuppositions and scholarly tools that were brought to other university disciplines. The challenge for Christian theologians after the Enlightenment was to explain how theology still belonged within a university that was governed by modern scholarly ideals of dispassionate inquiry, relevant evidence, and rational argumentation, and not responsible to any institutional religious authority. The most significant modern ordering of the theological disciplines was done by Schleiermacher, whose ground-breaking Brief Outline for the Study of Theology has informed all later descriptions.26 This work marked a significant turning point within the larger Christian tradition, not merely because it offered a creative defense of Christian theology as a university discipline but also because it set in motion a distinctively Protestant manner of understanding the nature of the theological task and the relation of the various theological subdisciplines to one another. Although Schleiermacher’s little book was not the first of its kind to be written in the modern period, or even the one most studied by theology students in the nineteenth century, it has served as the classic model for all subsequent attempts in the genre. For Schleiermacher, theology is to be divided into three subdisciplines: philosophical theology, which essentially examines the form and content of the particularities of Christian religious conviction; historical theology, which concentrates upon biblical interpretation, church history, and the history of doctrine; and practical theology, which teaches people the necessary skills to undertake ministry within Christian communities. These internal divisions of theology flowed from the concept of Christian theology itself, and each is integrally related to that concept. Nevertheless, in Schleiermacher’s view, the final branch of theology, the practical, provides the discipline with its overarching goal as a university subject, since the other two branches are actually carried out by means of nontheological philosophical and historical methods, and since the real purpose of theology as a university discipline is to provide the (state) church with well-educated clergy. Moreover, Schleiermacher held that academic theology arises from a personal and communal conviction about the truth of God that can neither be proved nor demonstrated. In this way Christian theology is “a positive science,” that is, a scholarly 26. Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline on the Study of Theology (1811 and 1830), trans. Terrance N. Tice (Atlanta: John Knox, 1966). For an excellent analysis of the development of German Protestant theology as an academic discipline in the wake of Schleiermacher’s influence, see Zachary Purvis, Theology and the University in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

479

480

Fundamental Theology

activity that describes a particular, empirical way of believing, which is ultimately oriented toward the cultivation of practical skills among those preparing for public service as church leaders.27 The study of theology, in this view, is thus a lot like the study of civil law. One studies materials that are empirically given in an institution, and one does so for the sake of preparing oneself for public service, either as a pastor (in the case of theology) or a lawyer (in the case of law). For Schleiermacher, the challenge of academic theology is to reconcile the tradition of biblical and creedal doctrines with a distinctively modern, scientifically informed account of Christian faith in service to a practical goal. Although he presented the three subdisciplines in the order he did (philosophical, historical, practical), the methods and results of each are intimately and dialectically related to those of the others. Thus, the Brief Outline frequently draws attention to correlations and cross-references among the three branches. Because Schleiermacher held that human beings are religious by nature and that they find their religious meaning within specific religious communities, he believed that the task of philosophical theology is to locate the Christian church in space and time and to articulate the essential character of the way of Christian believing that is commonly held within that community. What, then, is the essential content of the (Protestant) Christian way of believing? What is “the essence” of Christian faith? How has that content been defined over time within the Christian community? These are the main questions within philosophical theology. Thus, the starting point of theology for Schleiermacher involved inquiry into the nature of the Christian religious consciousness (“faith”) and its basis within a specific, empirical community (“the Prussian Protestant Church”). The concern of the theologian was to investigate how this specific community was located within history (“in relation to Jesus of Nazareth”) and how its faith has been transmitted over time.28 If, according to Schleiermacher, the task of philosophical theology is to delineate the reality of the church and to define the essence of Christianity, historical theology explores the unfolding of that essence in every period of church history, from the time of the apostles to the present. Within the Brief Outline this section is by far the largest. “Since historical theology attempts to exhibit every point of time in its true relation to the idea of ‘Christianity,’ it follows that it is at once not only the foundation of practical theology but also the verification of philosophical theology.”29 The essence of Christianity disclosed by philosophical theology is thus examined historically. Such historical investigation of the essence of Christianity is not merely interested in ascertaining historical facts; it is also interested in the disclosure of the historical meanings of relevant facts and in making judgments about what is 27. Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, 19, 32–3; cf. Schleiermacher, CF, 1.1-7, 179–80. 28. Cf. Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, 24–6; cf. Schleiermacher, CF, 1.3-6, 79–89, 131–9. 29. Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, 26.

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

truly authentic (consistent with the essence of Christianity) and inauthentic in the history of Christianity. Historical theology is further divided into biblical theology (exegesis), church history, and dogmatics, which collectively explore the essence of Christianity in chronological sequence from the earliest period (the apostolic) to the latest (present understanding of dogmatic teaching). Although the earliest, apostolic sources provide a normative understanding of the essence of Christianity, not everything in those sources is necessarily normative for the contemporary church, and everything within the biblical texts requires attention to hermeneutical, interpretational issues. Contemporary articulation of church doctrine is grounded upon its historical development and shaped by philosophical (and scientific) considerations that inform the interpretative process. The challenge of dogmatics is to form a coherent articulation of the contemporary teachings of the Christian church and not merely the private opinions of the individual theologian. While many critics of Schleiermacher have accused him of completely historicizing Christian dogmatics, and thus of preparing the way for its diminishment over time, he himself thought that dogmatics always reflects the theological convictions of the communities of faith within each successive epoch of history. Consequently, dogmatics must be undertaken anew by each generation. It needs to be underscored that Schleiermacher broke with previous orderings of theology by placing dogmatics within historical theology: In the usual arrangement of theology the chief points are exegetical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology. Only two of these, historical and practical, are acknowledged here and the exegetical and the dogmatic are both subordinated to the historical. Dogmatics thus appears as a part of historical theology, while it usually appears as coordinated with historical theology. The same holds for exegetical theology, about which far fewer objections have been made.30

In this way, dogmatics remains closely tied to the historical conditions of the church and its development through time. It remains attentive to the historical conditioning of church teachings, both past and present, and takes its cues from the historical confessions of faith that have been produced throughout the history of Christianity. Clearly, in order to carry out the tasks of theology, one must have a strong sense of history. The theologian is called upon to respect the church’s past and its authentic traditions that have been handed down to the present. (In Schleiermacher’s case, the preeminent confessions are the Protestant ones from the sixteenth century.)

30. Friedrich Schleiermacher, Theologische Enzyklopaedie (1831–1832): Nachschrift David Friedrich Strauss, ed. Walter Sachs (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), 182–3, as translated by Richard Crouter, Friedrich Schleiermacher, 217. Strauss’s transcript of Schleiermacher’s lectures on theological encyclopedia contains additional material (such as the statement quoted here) beyond the material included in the 1830 edition of the Brief Outline.

481

482

Fundamental Theology

Nevertheless, the theologian also has the responsibility to speak critically of those teachings and traditions that are inconsistent with the essence of Christianity or that contradict it. Likewise, the theologian has the responsibility of defending those teachings that are consistent with the essence and that manifest that essence in the past and the present. Historical theology thus seeks to avoid biblicism, which fails to acknowledge the historical and cultural distance between the apostolic writings and contemporary Christians and the historical developments that followed the apostolic age. On the other hand, historical theology also seeks to avoid an individualist philosophy of faith that fails to acknowledge the manifestations of Christian teaching in the long history of the church. In other words, Christian theology must avoid uncritical biblicism, on the one hand, and ahistorical rationalism and subjectivism, on the other. Practical theology, which Schleiermacher viewed as the crown of the theological disciplines, implements the results of the other two theological disciplines in the life of a congregation through pastoral leadership. If philosophical theology is a critical discipline and historical theology is an empirical discipline, practical theology is a technical discipline wherein the “arts of ministry” are used in “the care of souls” within a congregation.31 Such ministry requires the requisite basic knowledge of both philosophical and historical theology but also the necessary skills to communicate the truth of Christian faith to the contemporary religious community. While no one single person “can perfectly possess the full compass of theological knowledge,” one must “master the basic features of [the three theological subdisciplines],” if one is “to deal with any one of the theological disciplines in a truly theological sense and spirit.”32 The challenge of practical theology is to balance concern for the church and the “care of souls” (“a religious interest”) with a scholarly understanding of Christianity (“a scientific spirit”).33 Those who do this balancing job best are truly “princes of the church.”34 In the aftermath of the Brief Outline, works of this kind were produced by many German Protestant theologians who wanted to further Schleiermacher’s goals, even if they disagreed with him about how to reach them. Among the more successful of these later encyclopedias of theology was the one by Karl R. Hagenbach (1801– 74), his Encyclopedia and Methodology of the Theological Sciences, which was published in 1833.35 Unlike Schleiermacher, Hagenbach divided theology into four 31. Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, 93, 98, 101, 103. 32. Ibid., 22–3. 33. Ibid, 21. 34. Ibid, 21, 112. Cf. B. A. Gerrish, A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Beginnings of Modern Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001). 35. Karl R. Hagenbach, Encyclopedia and Methodology of the Theological Sciences, trans. Charles Porterfield Krauth (Philadelphia: Garner, 1885).

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

subdisciplines: exegetical (biblical interpretation), dogmatic, historical, and practical. He emphasized that the first subdiscipline, the exegetical, was the most important, since all of Christian (Protestant) theology is grounded in the biblical revelation, and exegesis is closest to that normative foundation. A fourfold division of theology also found support in a classic work that had a significant influence in the United States, the Theological Propaedeutic by the German-American church historian Philip Schaff (1819–93).36 While Schaff agreed with Hagenbach’s placement of exegesis as the initial subdiscipline, he favored historical theology over systematic theology. He also agreed with Schleiermacher and Hagenbach that practical theology is the aim of theology as a whole. But not everyone agreed with Hagenbach’s and Schaff ’s respective fourfold division of theology and their prioritizing of exegesis above the other subdisciplines. For example, Johannes von Hofmann, who had studied under Schleiermacher, delivered lectures on theological encyclopedia over the course of thirty years of teaching at Erlangen University.37 He adopted Schleiermacher’s innovative threefold structure for the organization of theology and attempted to articulate the essence of Christian faith as a unity of both his own personal Christian experience of faith and the historical development of the church. Nevertheless, he also tried to distance his taxonomy from the one set forth by his more famous teacher. For example, he did not think the first branch should take its orientation from philosophical methods, as he thought had been the case in Schleiermacher’s Brief Outline. The theologian should simply strive to systematize the essence of Christianity by providing a coherent summary of contemporary Christian teaching. For this reason, he labeled that first branch “systematic theology,” not “philosophical theology.” Likewise, he was critical of what he perceived to be Schleiermacher’s inattention to historical details in the Christian tradition, which for him also included the anticipatory events narrated in the OT. He thus highlighted the centrality of biblical exegesis, though he still located it within historical theology, as Schleiermacher did as well. Hofmann also agreed with his teacher by stressing that not everything the biblical scholar uncovers is normative for contemporary faith. In this way, he acknowledged that exegesis must also be guided by the results of both systematic and practical theology. More significantly, he thought that a strictly formal approach to theology, which both Schleiermacher and 36. Philip Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1893). 37. These lectures were published posthumously as Enzyklopädie der Theologie, nach Vorlesungen und Manuscripten [Encyclopedia of Theology, according to Lectures and Manuscripts], ed. H. J. Bestmann (Nördlingen: C. H. Beck, 1879). See Becker, The Self-Giving God and Salvation History, 31–58; and Becker, “The Shape of Theology as a University Wissenschaft: Schleiermacher’s Reflection in Hofmann’s Theological Encyclopedia,” Papers of the Nineteenth-Century Theology Group 37 (Atlanta, GA: American Academy of Religion, 2006), 103–27.

483

484

Fundamental Theology

Hagenbach represented, was inadequate to the task of a theological encyclopedia. He wanted to give a basic accounting of the various disciplines, always in relation to the object of one’s personal, existential faith and the risks that it involves. In other words, Hofmann included within his encyclopedia attention to the personal, existential dimension of faith and its relation to specific doctrinal teaching, drawn from the Scriptures. His theological encyclopedia is accordingly about three times as long as Schleiermacher’s. Finally, while Hofmann rejected Schleiermacher’s attempt to ground the unity and integrity of theology in a practical, clerical goal, he did agree that the third subdiscipline is practical theology (which concerns church leadership and other matters relating to the pastoral care of people and congregations). Unlike Schleiermacher, however, Hofmann thought academic theology should be solely grounded in its unique object of study (God and the individual Christian), in the peculiar mode of knowing that object (Christian faith), and in the particular method by which that object is understood and expressed as a unified whole, a method that correlates personal faith and historical investigation. While Hofmann acknowledged the correctness of Schleiermacher’s concern to avoid dogmatic biblicism, on the one hand, and an ahistorical rationalism and subjectivism, on the other, he and others have been troubled that Schleiermacher’s own approach would lead to the complete historicizing and relativizing of Christian teaching. This outcome is perhaps most obvious in the theological work of Ernst Troeltsch, who sharpened Schleiermacher’s theological method to be more historical. Troeltsch severely limited what is included in the content of faith.38 Following Troeltsch, others have also insisted that Christian doctrine is entirely a matter of historical factors that are distinct from divine revelation and “churchly” theology. For these scholars, only the historical method provides a truly scientific theology. In this view, the study of Christianity is entirely a scholarly matter of investigating the history of religions. The challenge for theologians after Schleiermacher and Troeltsch has been to affirm the positive results of the introduction of modern historical-critical methods into theology without losing the object of theology or its abiding theological claims on present individuals and communities. One tendency among theologians after Troeltsch has been to retreat from the university setting altogether into a narrower context that is entirely ecclesial. Karl Barth’s theology has given support to the movement of theology away from other university disciplines. Despite his own university appointment, Barth himself emphasized that Christian theology is entirely a matter of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ that the church has received from God. The title of Barth’s multivolume 38. See Walter E. Wyman Jr., The Concept of Glaubenslehre: Ernst Troeltsch and the Theological Heritage of Schleiermacher, AAR Academy Series 44 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). The classic essay by Troeltsch that treats the differences between historical and theological approaches to Christian theology is “Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology,” in Religion in History, 11–32.

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

Church Dogmatics underscores his position, as does the title of a three-volume theological encyclopedia by one of his associates, Theology as Ecclesial Science.39 While Christian theology is a scholarly discipline, in this view, it is an ecclesial discipline first and foremost, one that takes its entire orientation from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The central task of theology is to serve the task of preaching within the church. The problem with this Barthian approach, however, is that it presupposes the special and unique character of Christian theology, over and against all other religions and university disciplines. Because Barth insisted that scholarly theology is entirely determined by the unique object it studies, it is easy to see how theology could become completely isolated from all other scholarly disciplines. Already in Barth’s own time, his former teacher, Adolf von Harnack, warned that Barth wished “to transform the theological professor’s chair into a pulpit.”40 Less than a decade after Barth’s death, another important theologian, namely, Wolfhart Pannenberg, leveled similar criticism: What means has theology of justifying its claim to be automatically in a different and privileged position when the truth of its statements is challenged? Any such claim can be no more than an empty assertion. Even if claims of this sort are made on the theological side with disarming innocence, it is understandable, to say no more, if in other quarters they give an impression of immense arrogance on the part of a discipline which can ultimately, as a discipline, be no more than human.41

Pannenberg’s own approach is better suited for an undergraduate university context in which the theologies of the world’s religions are investigated critically and evaluated systematically with respect to their particular, historical, and theological truth claims. Accordingly, in this context, the Christian theological disciplines must engage the questions and provisional solutions that arise from all other university disciplines insofar as they also impact a contemporary understanding of the subject matter of Christian theology. Christian theology must be especially attentive to the critical perspectives and insights from the history of religions, the philosophy of religion, the psychology of religion, the sociology of religion, and the phenomenology of religion. Most works in theological encyclopedia for a North American audience have not taken these other disciplines into account. The primary audience for most introductions to Christian theology tend to be students at church-related institutions, seminaries, and professional divinity schools. In these contexts Christian theology is undertaken mostly by Christians who are preparing for leadership positions within

39. Hermann Diem, Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft, 3 vols (Munich: Kaiser, 1951–63). 40. Adolf von Harnack, “An Open Letter to Karl Barth,” in The Beginnings of Dialectical Theology, ed. James M. Robinson, trans. Keith Crim (Richmond: John Knox, 1968), 171. 41. Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, 19.

485

486

Fundamental Theology

Christian communities and who share certain Christian presuppositions. Within these contexts the fourfold division of theology has been dominant: Biblical theology (exegesis) is the initial subdiscipline, followed by historical theology, systematic theology (which organizes Christian teaching into a systematic order), and practical theology (developing skills necessary to be a priest or a pastor). In this scheme, all four branches approach the same object, namely, “Christianity,” but they approach it through differing methods (historical, psychological, sociological, church-practical) and concentrate on differing sources or materials (Bible, church history and doctrine, the care of souls in contemporary congregations). Following Schleiermacher’s taxonomy, the unifying goal of the four subdisciplines is the practical training of future pastors or church leaders. Unfortunately, a consequence of this fourfold division has been the fragmentation of theology into disparate, autonomous, specialized disciplines that have little or nothing in common with the others and are often only tenuously related to other, nontheological academic disciplines (especially psychology and sociology). Frequently, the theological dimension may be neglected altogether within a given subdiscipline, especially within the historical study of the Christian Scriptures and the Christian church and the teaching of those practical techniques that are necessary for church leadership. While the practical training of future pastors and priests may help to unify the subdisciplines at the graduate level, this practical goal does not often apply at the undergraduate level, where many students are not preparing for a leadership position in a church, and some may not be Christian or even religious. At all levels, at least in explicitly Christian-based institutions, most students of theology may take “a little exegesis” and “a little church history” and “a little doctrinal theology,” but they never wrestle with the unity among these different courses or grapple with the interrelationships of the subdisciplines. Even if some students have the professional goal of becoming church leaders, lost in the curricular shuffle is the unity inherent in the object of theology itself, which becomes subordinate to the scholarly foci and methods within each of the subdisciplines. This problem is exacerbated at the undergraduate level, where the practical goal of leadership and ministry is likely not a factor for most students or their instructors. The fourfold division and its practical aim are not without further problems, especially at the undergraduate level. By dividing theology into the fourfold pattern, one could easily assume that each subdiscipline is independent and autonomous from the others, when in fact each subdiscipline interacts with the others and influences the others in relation to the single subject of theology. This is especially prone to happen when the fourfold structure separates biblical theology (exegesis) from historical theology. Since biblical exegesis is guided largely by historical and philological methods that are also used by historians, it best fits as a subdiscipline under historical theology. By stressing the relation of exegesis to the other areas of historical theology, one underscores the intimate connection between present

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

interpretations of Scripture and the history of the interpretation of those same Scriptures. In this way, too, one avoids minimizing the interpretational challenges that have resulted from the temporal and cultural distance that exists between past biblical authors/communities and present interpreters. Not everything within Scripture is normative for contemporary Christian faith. As Chapter 9 aimed to make clear, biblical exegesis is not undertaken in isolation from either historical theology or doctrinal theology (i.e., the key teachings of the Christian faith). Historical theology wrestles with the historical origins of the biblical writings, evaluates the canonical status of each writing in relation to historical and theological factors, and makes critical judgments about the historical claims within the biblical documents and the history of biblical interpretation (which includes attention to errors that have arisen within biblical interpretation). In view of these problems with the fourfold division of theology, the structure adopted here will be a threefold one. This threefold structure—fundamental theology, historical theology, and practical theology—will be explained further in the next chapter. Fundamental theology, which is operative in all of the subdisciplines to one degree or another, discloses that not every statement in Scripture is binding upon contemporary Christians, that not every scriptural word or message is addressed to contemporary people, that some scriptural teachings are outdated, and that others are more central. Fundamental theology includes the task of comparing the results of contemporary interpretations of the biblical texts with those that have emerged within the history of biblical interpretation and the history of doctrine and of evaluating their theological claims. Thus, fundamental theology has an impact on biblical interpretation and the history of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, fundamental theology provides historical theology (especially doctrinal theology) and practical theology (especially ethics) with the perspective for distinguishing what is important from what is unimportant in both the biblical writings as well as in church history and the history of doctrine. Without this differentiation biblical exegesis would be mere philology (the study of words and their meanings), church history would be completely indistinguishable from secular history, and Christian ethics would be no different from philosophical ethics. Fundamental theology thus raises questions about the center of theology, about the truth of the gospel and the essence of Christian faith, about what is abidingly normative in the biblical passages (do they mean the same as they did in the past?), and about the practical application of biblical passages in present situations that are different from past contexts. Have not some biblical texts themselves become null and void in the wake of the gospel and the dictates of Christian love? So fundamental theology addresses itself to potential differences between past and present meaning(s) of biblical texts. It hopes always to articulate a contemporary understanding of Christian faith. And it does so in relation to contemporary knowledge and cultural

487

488

Fundamental Theology

circumstances. Finally, too, fundamental theology, on behalf of all the other subdisciplines, has a critical task over against the church itself. Fundamental theology wants to develop the essential content of the church’s own faith in the present, to criticize the church and its history when it deviates or has deviated from that essential content, and to call the church back to its own immovable center, namely, Jesus the Christ, the incarnate Word (the Logos) of God. So fundamental theology reminds the church and all individuals within the church, including especially theologians, that they do not have an authority above or independent from that center. Given these concerns, the overall goal of fundamental theology is to provide the other two subdisciplines with a coherent understanding of theology as a whole, of organizing the results of all the subdisciplines (and the subdisciplines of these) insofar as they are significant for an understanding of what is essential in Christian teaching (both doctrinally and ethically), and to develop a theological summary of that essential content. This is the abiding insight of Schleiermacher, namely, that philosophical theology, broadened to include theological hermeneutics, is the key to understanding each of the theological subdisciplines. Whereas Schleiermacher saw philosophical theology as fulfilling that initial task, it is better that this task be undertaken within fundamental theology (which includes natural and philosophical theology, the investigation of the sources and norms of Christian teaching, theological hermeneutics, and the normative, essential content of the Christian faith). Thus, the intent of fundamental theology is not to defend Christian documents per se (whether Scripture or church confessional writings) as authoritative products of the past, nor is it to defend a particular church body and its teachings and traditions. Rather, the task of fundamental theology is to set forth what the Scriptures and the confessional texts contain as valid for the present. It hopes to answer the question, “What does the historic witness to Christ mean for us today? How does one make sense of the manifold content of that witness for contemporary human beings and their world?” Because the task of fundamental theology serves the other subdisciplines by constantly calling them back to the subject of theology as a whole, to the normative basis and essence of the Christian faith, it ought to be discussed first in any taxonomy of Christian theology. Nevertheless, while fundamental theology will have a crucial impact on the execution of historical theology (including biblical exegesis and the formation of doctrine), so also historical theology will have an influence on fundamental theology. There is an inescapable hermeneutical circle here. One begins with a definition of the basis and center of Christian faith, which is drawn from historical theology, which in turn guides and shapes one’s historical investigation of Scripture, Christian doctrine, the history of theology, and the history of Christianity, as well as the subdisciplines of practical theology. The challenge of theological hermeneutics is inescapable for any of the subdisciplines of theology, no less for biblical theology than for doctrinal theology or philosophical theology, for that matter. Especially through the investigations of

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

the normative sources of Christian teaching, historical theology discloses when particular descriptions of the basis and normative essence of the Christian faith have not taken into sufficient account some historical detail that is of abiding importance to Christian teaching. The historical theologian is thus in a position to correct flawed presentations of fundamental theology or flawed applications of Christian teaching in present, practical situations. Given the scope of historical theology, it contains the largest number of subdisciplines (i.e., biblical theology, doctrinal theology, history of theology, and the history of Christianity). Perhaps the greatest weakness of both Schleiermacher’s encyclopedia and the fourfold structure, at least at the undergraduate level, is their common assertion that practical theology is the crown and goal of theology. Such a view, at all levels of theological education, can easily lead to what Farley has called “the clerical paradigm,” in which theology is merely a practical matter of educating future church leaders and providing them with “skills” for “public ministry.”42 Farley and others lament that such a practical focus can minimize how the discipline engages people with certain basic theological questions: the truth about God, the world, and human beings. As an undergraduate academic discipline, Christian theology is not oriented toward the practical aim of clergy education or the education of church leaders. Rather, in this context, theology is primarily about the pursuit of truth, the cultivation of wisdom, and theological knowledge of God, oneself, and the world. While there is a place for practical theology at the undergraduate level, its focus is largely a matter of Christian ethics, the pursuit of justice, and the study of church structures and institutions (congregations, their worship-life, trans-denominational organizations, missions, Christian service, Christian public theology, and political action). Like the other two subdisciplines, practical theology also invites critical and self-critical reflection on the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ for the sake of the pursuit of wisdom, especially as it informs personal and social-political ethical action. In this way, the question of the truth of theological claims remains fundamental in each of the three main subdisciplines, including practical theology. Accordingly, the unity of these three subdisciplines at the undergraduate level is given in the subject of theology itself: the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. Still another, related reason why practical theology is not the crown of the theological disciplines resides in the fact that fundamental and historical theology have a responsibility to criticize the church and its practical traditions when these conflict with the truth of the object of theology. In other words, theology has the task of always putting the church and its beliefs and practices into a position of being questioned and examined. While none of the theological subdisciplines can disregard the reality of the churches and their situations, fundamental and historical 42. Farley, Theologia, 127–35.

489

490

Fundamental Theology

theology are neither to promote the church nor protect it from criticism, especially if the historical development of the churches and their present situation call for it.43 This responsibility seems often to be lacking in Roman Catholic accounts of fundamental theology. Theology ought not to be primarily guided by the perspective of a practical, pragmatic, ecclesial utility. Too often theology is marginalized when its sole focus is on a specific church body and its practical life rather than the more encompassing arenas of the academy, human societies, and larger questions about truth, wisdom, and justice. The concerns for truth and the promise of the gospel are more basic to the theological task, and these concerns could lead the theologian to be critical of the church (or a church body), its beliefs, and its practices. When theological correction is required within Christian communities, the theologian has the responsibility to bring that criticism. “Discernment begins within the household of faith” (1 Pet. 4.17). Such criticism is, of course, in service to the church and its mission; academic theology cannot avoid the reality of the church, but it is not necessarily the advocate of the church and its practical life. It can do its work properly only if it is not encumbered by thoughts about defending or promoting the church and its practical activities.

Questions for review and discussion







1. Walter Rüegg and others have noted how the medieval university was premised on core Christian beliefs. What are these beliefs? To what extent are these beliefs still central to the institution of modern, secular universities? 2. According to the Lutheran theologian Gerhard Ebeling, “All too often the church and theology have closed themselves to the progress of scholarly knowledge and have suppressed the truth until the artificial dam bursts again and the stream of true insight can no longer be stopped.” The author refers to the Galileo affair and to the rejection of Darwinian evolution by many American Christians. Can you think of other examples that fit Ebeling’s description? 3. How do religion, Christian theology, and theological issues continue to surface in contemporary public universities in the United States? 4. Where does Christian theology fit in a modern university? The author very briefly notes how some have understood the relationship between “theology” and “religious studies.” Which way is most persuasive to you? Why? 5. What is the difference between an encyclopedia (e.g., Religion Past and Present) and a theological encyclopedia, e.g., Schleiermacher’s Brief Outline? 43. Cf. Elert, The Christian Faith, §2.

Christian Theology as a University Discipline







On what basis did Schleiermacher defend the place of Christian theology in a university over against Fichte’s proposal to exclude it? 6. Why is academic Christian theology typically divided into subdisciplines? 7. Schleiermacher divided theology into three subdisciplines (philosophical, historical, and practical), as did Hofmann (systematic, historical, and practical). Hagenbach and Schaff divided the discipline into four (exegesis, historical, systematic, and practical). How did each of these theologians understand the purpose of each of the main subdisciplines? 8. Why does the author think Hofmann’s and Pannenberg’s respective approaches are more suited to an undergraduate liberal arts setting than the approach of Barth? Do you think that Barth’s approach is less suitable for an undergraduate setting? Why or why not? 9. The author is critical of those who orient Christian theology toward a practical goal. Why? Do you agree or disagree with this criticism? 10. Do you think Christian theology can or should be studied as an academic discipline within a religious studies department in a North American public (secular) university? Why or why not?

Suggestions for further reading The place of Christian theology within a university David Ford, Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). [Professor Ford’s focus is on the British scene, but his reflections apply to other university settings, both graduate and undergraduate. His book has significantly influenced the present chapter.] David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 2nd edn, ed. D. E. Luscombe and C. N. L. Brooke (London: Longman, 1988). [Excellent historical survey of the rise of medieval universities and how they brought together earlier classical and Christian traditions of learning.] D. L. Bird and Simon G. Smith, eds., Theology and Religious Studies in Higher Education (New York: Continuum, 2009). [This set of essays by scholars from around the world sets forth some of the current issues and debates regarding the tensions, conflicts, and agreements between the academic disciplines of religious studies and theology.]

Brief introductions to theological encyclopedia Hermann Fischer, “Encyclopedia,” EC, 2.92. Ulrich Kronauer, “Encyclopedia,” RPP, 4.436. Torsten Meireis, Darryl G. Hart, Michael Huhn, John Roxborogh, Uri Kaufmann, Heinz Halm, and Martin Hoffmann, “Theological Education,” RPP, 12:610–17.

491

492

Fundamental Theology

Christoph Schwöbel, “Theology: Theological Encyclopedia,” RPP, 12.643–6.

Theological encyclopedia Matthew Becker, “The Shape of Theology as a University Wissenschaft: Schleiermacher’s Reflection in Hofmann’s Theological Encyclopedia,” Papers of the Nineteenth-Century Theology Group 37 (Atlanta, GA: American Academy of Religion, 2006), 103–27. [Provides a description and analysis of Schleiermacher’s and Hofmann’s contrasting views on theological encyclopedia.] Richard Crouter, “Shaping an Academic Discipline: The Brief Outline on the Study of Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, ed. Jacqueline Mariña (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 111–28. [A helpful analysis of Schleiermacher’s ground-breaking theological encyclopedia.] Gerhard Ebeling, “Discussion Theses for a Course of Introductory Lectures on the Study of Theology,” in Word and Faith, 424–33. [Provides a further defense of the need for all of the theological subdisciplines to take their orientation from the theological subject that is studied hermeneutically.] Gerhard Ebeling, “Theology as a Whole,” in The Study of Theology, 1–11. [Underscores the need to keep the properly theological character of theology as a whole in view of its potential and real disintegration into subdisciplines and specialties.] G. R. Evans, Old Arts and New Technology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980). [Provides a complementary and partly contrasting account of the rise of medieval universities and the place of Christian theology within them compared to the accounts offered by Ford and Knowles.] Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). [Ground-breaking work on the disintegration of Christian academic theology and the need for a new way of understanding “theological encyclopedia.”] Edward Farley, The Fragility of Knowledge: Theological Education in the Church and the University (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). [This work carries forward the conversation Farley began with his earlier book, Theologia.] David H. Kelsey, Between Athens and Jerusalem: The Theological Education Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). [Offers a helpful overview and critical analysis of the discussions about theological education in the United States in the wake of Edward Farley’s work.] Schubert Ogden, “What is Theology?” in On Theology, 1–21. [The most important example of theological encyclopedia by an American theologian in the last century. Ogden’s presentation is informed by his engagement with Bultmann and modern process philosophy.] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis McDonagh (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 346–440. [The most important German example of theological encyclopedia in the past century. Like Ogden’s essays in

Christian Theology as a University Discipline

the aforementioned volume, Pannenberg’s are oriented toward a graduate-level audience.] Karl Rahner, ed., Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi (New York: Crossroad, 1982). [Major reference work in Roman Catholic theology.] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline on the Study of Theology (1811 and 1830), trans. Terrance N. Tice (Atlanta: John Knox, 1966). [The most important Protestant analysis of the nature and tasks of Christian theology, as it was conceived for students at the University of Berlin in the early nineteenth century. This book has had a decisive influence on subsequent attempts in theological encyclopedia, including the one set forth in this book.]

493

13 The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology This chapter divides undergraduate theology into fundamental theology (philosophical theology and theological encyclopedia), historical theology (biblical theology, doctrinal theology, the history of theology, and the history of Christianity), and practical theology (ecclesial studies and theological ethics).

In light of the concerns raised in the previous chapter, a better way of structuring Christian theology at the undergraduate level is a threefold pattern, which follows the insights of Schleiermacher and von Hofmann: fundamental theology (inclusive of philosophical theology, which examines the subject of the Christian faith, and theological encyclopedia, which serves to orient the theological disciplines as a whole toward that subject), historical theology (inclusive of biblical theology, doctrinal theology, the history of theology, and the history of Christianity), and practical theology (inclusive of ecclesial studies and theological ethics). Although fundamental theology appears first in the taxonomy, since its foundational issues provide an essential and normative understanding of the subject matter of theology in the present situation, the methods and results of each subdiscipline are intimately and dialectically related to those of the others, as in Schleiermacher’s view. Fundamental theology defines Christian theology and explores issues in philosophical theology, including especially the reality of God (the One who makes knowledge of God possible) and the truth of theology. It also identifies the sources and norms of Christian theology, sets forth basic hermeneutical principles for investigating the biblical texts (the normative means by which God is more truly known), and analyzes the nature of faith as a positive response to the word of God. Because philosophical theology is also charged with identifying the grounds for Christian faith, it leads to a basic understanding of special revelation, the shape of the biblical narrative as salvation history, and the key themes in Christian teaching. Most important is the identification of the truth of the Christian gospel as the central theme in Christian doctrine.

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

ial

Th Et eol hi og cs i

les

ca l

c Ec St ud ies

P

History of Chrisanity

H

R

al phic oso Phil logy o The

F The o Enc logica yclo l ped ia

R = Revelaon

l lica Bib ology The

Doctr in Theolo al gy

of ry y sto log i H eo Th

F = Fundamental Theology H = Historical Theology

P = Praccal Theology

Figure 13.1  Theology Wheel.

Historical theology investigates the historical meaning(s) of statements within the NT and OT Scriptures, develops a more detailed summary of Christian teaching for the present moment, explores the history of Christian theology (which includes the study of church confessions), and the history of Christianity. Historical theology thus centers on biblical interpretation, but it also includes “thinking along with” an important theologian or set of theologians from the past, to learn what they might have to say to us today. Historical theology also entails setting forth church teaching, which is normed by the Scriptures and informed by past articulations of Christian doctrine. More broadly, this subdiscipline of theology examines the complex history of Christianity, its key figures, and most important turning points. Practical theology is divided into ecclesial studies (liturgics, homiletics, sacramental theology, missions, para-church activities, and ecclesial and liturgical art and architecture) and ethics. Since ecclesial studies examine the practical life of the present-day churches, it is most closely related to the subdiscipline of church history in historical theology. Included in ecclesial studies is reflection on the nature and purpose of the church and its ministry (“the theology of the church”). Since Christian ethics is also partially oriented to theological principles for the present situation, it is most closely related to philosophical theology within fundamental theology, and

495

496

Fundamental Theology

doctrinal theology within historical theology. At the undergraduate level, where students are pursuing basic, foundational knowledge in all academic disciplines and are not directly pursuing professional training, most attention is given to the first two branches of theology and to ethics in the third branch.

Fundamental theology Fundamental theology (not to be confused with Protestant fundamentalism or biblicism) desires to provide a scholarly defense of the place of theology within the academic disciplines and to discern what can be known of God through human reasoning and through reflection on the nature of divine revelation. While the roots of fundamental theology go back to the time of the Reformation, when several Roman Catholic theologians tried to defend their church body and its teachings as the authentic form of Christianity over against perceived Protestant deviations, works in fundamental theology have been more common since the age of the Enlightenment. In view of the challenges posed by modern critics of the Roman Church, nineteenth-century Roman Catholic fundamental theology put forth a defense of religion against atheism, argued for the superiority of Christianity over other world religions, and maintained the truth of Catholicism over against the errors of supposed heretics (such as Luther and his followers). While Roman Catholic fundamental theology had consistently focused upon the relation of philosophy to theology and had fostered a lively interest in metaphysics, during the past century it has focused more and more on the relation of theology to modern thought forms and toward the knowledge that has come from the sciences. In these ways, modern Catholic fundamental theology has tried to navigate between intellectual developments in the secular university disciplines and the normative character of the Roman Catholic Church as both the product of divine revelation and the normative means of that revelation. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), however, Roman Catholic fundamental theology has generally shifted away from the attempt to set forth a rationalistic defense of that particular church body and its teaching and toward interreligious and interdisciplinary dialogue and the problems that have arisen from thinking about divine revelation, epistemology, metaphysics, hermeneutics, and theological method. Contemporary Roman Catholic fundamental theology continues to discuss such issues as the relationship between revelation and reason, the authority of Scripture and Roman Tradition, the relationship between faith and human experience, the problems of language and historical understanding, the relationship between theory and social-politicalecclesial praxis, the relation of scientific knowledge to church teaching, and the appropriate form of a Roman Catholic theology of the world’s religions.

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

Because Protestant theologians have traditionally been suspicious of all attempts to provide a supposedly rational, objective basis and defense of Christian faith, and because of their distrust of ecclesial institutions and their potential power to corrupt biblical teaching, Protestants did not develop a tradition of fundamental theology, in the Roman sense, until the twentieth century. While issues treated within Roman Catholic fundamental theology have also been important for Protestant theologians since the Reformation, these have typically been addressed only within the introductory section of works in dogmatic theology, usually under the heading of “theological prolegomena” (“the first principles of theology”). These first principles set forth typically Protestant understandings of divine revelation, the use of philosophy in theology, the relationship between reason and faith, the nature of biblical authority, and the principles of biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, just as post-Reformation Catholic fundamental theology defended Catholicism and its particular understandings of church, tradition, authority, reason, and faith, so also traditional Protestant prolegomena have tried to defend Protestant positions on the primacy of the oral and written word of God over against church tradition, as well as the primacy and centrality of faith alone in the biblical gospel of Christ alone over against human philosophy and the sinful condition of all things human, including human reasoning. One must underscore that the analysis and presentation of these “first principles” in Protestant theology occurred almost entirely within a church setting and within works of dogmatics that were written for future Protestant pastors. Because of these self-imposed limitations, pre-Enlightenment Protestant dogmatic theology was frequently unrelated to the problems that would surround Christian theology as an academic discipline in post-Enlightenment universities. In the wake of the collapse of the older Protestant position on the inspiration of the Bible and various attempts to move beyond the subjectivist turn in the liberal Protestant tradition that was begun by Kant and Schleiermacher, contemporary Protestant fundamental theology has focused on the problems of theological hermeneutics and the challenge of speaking of the word of God as divine revelation. Protestant fundamental theology continually hunts for divine truth, especially concerning the reality of God and of God’s revelation, in relation to all other claims to truth. Protestant fundamental theology thus “has the tendency to embrace everything in theology methodologically oriented to the question of contemporary validity and to the testing of the claim to truth.”1 Fundamental theology aims to engage all disciplines of human inquiry in relation to Christian theology and its truth claims. Philosophical theology, which is one of two subdisciplines within fundamental theology, examines arguments for and against the reality of God, articulates reasons for concluding that God is real (even if one does not really know who or what “God” is), analyzes atheistic arguments against religion and God, and then raises 1. Ebeling, The Study of Theology, 126.

497

498

Fundamental Theology

critical questions and responses to those arguments. For many Protestants, myself included, philosophical theology merely removes false understandings of the subject of theology and does not really establish a solid understanding of who God is. We are left with the puzzle of God’s hiddenness and the need for special revelation, the revelation of God in law and gospel, and the theology of the cross. So I do indeed part ways with most forms of Roman Catholic fundamental theology, at least with respect to their affirmation, following Aquinas, of a basic continuity between philosophical theology and special revelation. As I indicated at the beginning of Chapter 7, Protestants tend to stress the disjuncture between the natural knowledge of God and God’s special revelation in law and gospel. Lutheran Protestants, in particular, also frame the problem of evil and God’s hiddenness within the theology of the cross and the need for divine special revelation, that is, biblical theology and doctrinal theology that are grounded in the biblical witness of the prophets and the apostles. In the end, philosophical theology deals with the question of the truth in theology, especially the truth of the gospel. Philosophical theology continually raises the question of the subject matter of Christian theology as a whole; it does so on behalf of the other theological subdisciplines and in conversation with those university disciplines whose foci intersect with that subject matter. Philosophical theology aspires to comprehend, to test, and to articulate the essential and necessary content of Christian teaching, though to be sure a critical understanding of Christian doctrine also requires an understanding of biblical theology and the history of doctrine. The second subdiscipline of fundamental theology is theological encyclopedia, which describes the various branches of theology that together form it into a unified academic subject, one that intentionally seeks interdisciplinary engagement with all other academic disciplines. The goal of a theological encyclopedia is actually quite modest, if still quite challenging: to provide a rationale for the discipline of theology as a whole, to offer a brief introduction to its branches or subdisciplines, and to highlight some of the ongoing problems within each of the subdisciplines. Thus, theological encyclopedia continually circles back to what makes theology theology, what comprises the unity and necessity of theology, and how each of the subdisciplines in theology cannot fulfill its specific tasks without aid from the others. “The demand for interdisciplinary exchange—initially within theology itself— is justified because an essentially interdisciplinary character is effective in each theological discipline, even though often only in a rudimentary and undisciplined way.”2 Theological encyclopedia helps the budding theologian to see the basic subject matter of theology in each of the subdisciplines and to seek the unity of theology in that subject. It falls to theological encyclopedia to consider the whole of theology, to show how each of the subdisciplines is connected to the others, and to organize the subdisciplines in such a way that they each continue to serve the overall theological 2. Ibid., 157.

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

task of seeking divine truth and the relationship of that truth to human life and the rest of creation. Because of this basic task of comprehending, testing, and articulating the essential and necessary content of historic Christian teaching on the basis of the results of all three subdisciplines, fundamental theology has the task of setting forth the subject matter of theology in its full complexity. It does this on behalf of the other two subdisciplines. Only in the perspective of fundamental theology, with its carefully-thought-through understanding of the total content of Christian theology, do the distinctive tasks of historical theology (biblical exegesis, doctrinal theology, history of theology, and church history) become clearer in relation to the scholarly disciplines of history and philology. Only in the perspective of fundamental theology do the distinctive tasks of practical theology (ethics and ecclesial studies) become clearer in relation to philosophical ethics, gender studies, cultural studies, psychology, and sociology. Fundamental theology must take the lead in constantly putting Christian faith and practice into a position of being questioned. It must also question any and all forms of dogmatism, whether of the believing kind, which is frequently found within religious communities, or of the insufficiently grounded, skeptical kind, which is often found within academic communities. Unsubstantiated skepticism is just as far removed from true learning as is unsubstantiated dogmatism. Critical theology is opposed to both, even as it wants to be self-critical in relation to its subject matter. Of course, claims to make “critical thought” a more certain grounding for knowledge are notoriously slippery and contested, as we have noted in previous chapters. Within Christian fundamental theology there is the explicit awareness that all human knowledge, including the theological, remains incomplete and imperfect (1 Cor. 13.9) until “the end of time.” For this reason, too, fundamental theology must be understood as not referring to a static, closed system, but to an interpretative, hermeneutical stance for engaging the questions of understanding, wisdom, and truth within theology—also in relation to the person who is by nature “without faith.” While some Christians will undoubtedly find this approach to theology intellectually challenging, and even uncomfortable, especially if cherished beliefs are held up to critical scrutiny, one cannot and should not avoid such challenges that accompany every academic subject. “Just like every other academic investigation, theology distinguishes itself from the witches’ kitchen of alchemy by the fact that it may at all times grant others an insight into its mode of operation, but academic discipline demands also that we wait until its fruits have matured.”3 While fundamental theology is guided by strict academic standards and methods and the concern for truth and accuracy, it is also shaped by existential commitments. What Pannenberg says about systematic theology applies equally to the aforementioned description of fundamental theology: 3. Elert, The Christian Faith, 20.

499

500

Fundamental Theology

To engage in systematic theology in this way is quite compatible with personal confidence in the ultimate truth of the Christian doctrine, even more so than on the basis of a prior commitment to authority. A Christian should be ready to leave it to God himself to prove definitively his reality, and he or she should be content to perceive but vaguely and to adumbrate the infinite wealth of the truth of God. But certainly, we need to be reassured of that truth, and precisely there is the place for systematic theology.4

Finally, fundamental theology is theology only to the extent that it wrestles with the abiding problems of theology as these have emerged from history, problems that are posed for theology by its own historical location and its relation to the past of theology. Since the task of fundamental theology is to investigate the content that is given within the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus, and to inquire about its sufficient basis and abiding nature, the task of fundamental theology is necessarily informed by historical inquiry. This historical dimension of fundamental theology is further explored within the subdiscipline of historical theology.

Historical theology Historical theology investigates historical developments within “Christianity.” It is “theology” only to the extent that it participates in the investigation of that which fundamental theology also investigates, namely, the subject of Christian theology. With regard to its method, historical theologians use the same tools and principles that all other historians use, and thus historical theology stands in close proximity to the academic disciplines of history, the history of religions, the philosophy of history, sociology, and the humanities. Historical theologians utilize historical-critical methods for investigating past phenomena within Christianity; they follow the heuristic principles that Troeltsch has classically formulated (criticism, analogy, and correlation), and they seek to be rid of (religious or antireligious) prejudice and bias. On the other hand, to the extent that they are guided by theological principles, norms, and concerns, historical theologians do address matters of theology that take them beyond mere historical-critical study. Not only are historical theologians interested in the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Christianity as a collection of phenomena within world history, but they also cannot avoid addressing their own theological judgments regarding Jesus the Christ and his relation to all subsequent historical phenomena, a perspective that undoubtedly shapes and informs their attempt to understand past events within the history of Christianity. For example, 4. Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 18.

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

what is the relation of the Jesus of history to the Christ of faith? Did Jesus found “the church?” Are the so-called “Gnostic” Christians just as legitimate as those who attacked them and labeled them “heretics?” Which historical-critical and theological judgments does the scholar make about other turning points in the history of Christianity? Do the developments of early “catholicism” and the Constantinian “revolution” mark legitimate continuations of apostolic Christianity, or are they essentially discontinuous? Were the reforms of Luther legitimate or illegitimate? Historical theologians, to the extent that they are indeed involved in theology, cannot avoid these kinds of normative, theological questions that often enter into historical theology as an academic discipline. As noted in the previous chapter, biblical theology is best understood not as a separate branch of theology (as in Hagenbach’s fourfold division) but as a subdiscipline in historical theology. Its placement there is due to the fact that the interpretation of the Bible is guided largely by the same historical and philological methods that are used by secular historians. Furthermore, by stressing the relation of biblical interpretation (exegesis) to the other areas of historical theology, one underscores the intimate connection between present interpretations of Scripture and the history of the interpretation of those same Scriptures. In this way, too, one avoids minimizing the interpretative, hermeneutical challenges that have resulted from the temporal and cultural distance that exists between past biblical authors/communities and present interpreters. That not everything is normative in the Bible today becomes clearer if one keeps biblical theology firmly placed in historical theology. While biblical theology thus investigates the historical origin of the Christian Scriptures and their historical meaning(s) in the history of their interpretation, the fundamental aim is to derive theological insights from the scriptural texts that are applicable to contemporary life. What distinguishes the theological interpretation of these writings from the historical investigation of all other historical writings is the degree to which interpreters allow the theological subject matter of the texts to address themselves and others with an authoritative theological claim. This claim is itself premised on a theological engagement with the questions regarding the nature of the biblical canon and the extent of those Scriptures that are deemed to be truly prophetic and apostolic. Because the biblical theologian comes to these Scriptures with the expectation that they attest to the authoritative word of God, the scholar will make use of all methods and means which are appropriate to an ancient text that has been used to pass on historical tradition as normative. The scholar will strive to remain open to the theological content of these Scriptures, to give complete attention to all details in the texts, and to use the most rigorous scholarly methods for the sake of making clear how the word of God has been expressed and understood through them over time. Given that the collection of early Christian literature is large and complex, and contains a wide variety of different types of writing with differing theological claims,

501

502

Fundamental Theology

the biblical theologian must attend first to the problem of the development of the biblical canon within early Christianity (and to the abiding theological significance of the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena), to the hermeneutical challenges involved in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and to the problem of the relation between the writings of the OT and of the NT. As noted in Chapter 9, the biblical theologian is guided by certain hermeneutical principles vis-a-vis the interpretation of these texts. Not only must the biblical theologian master the original biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) and learn about the historical contexts of the biblical writings, but that person must also attend to the literary character of the Bible and to the process by which the biblical books have been gathered into a canonical whole. The goal of biblical theology is to uncover and explain the historical meaning(s) of the biblical texts—what they “meant” “then and there”—to criticize and ward off false or inappropriate understandings, and to maintain a posture of self-criticism in view of the many possible ways in which biblical interpreters can deceive themselves in the process of their interpretations. Since “the word of God” is by its very nature not simply and only a written, once-upon-a-time word (“Scripture”), but also a living and incarnate Word (one that exercises an uncanny claim on the reader/hearer and is proclaimed and understood in the present), biblical theology provides faithful exposition of the ancient biblical writings in service to that present proclamation and understanding. Doctrinal theology is a subdiscipline in historical theology that tries to provide a contemporary, coherent, ordered, and systematic summary of Christian teaching that is attentive to the results of fundamental theology and that draws upon material that is uncovered through historical investigation of the Scriptures. It is also systematic in that it engages the subject matter of Christian theology in such a way that the teaching is presented properly, that is, to thematize the truth of the Christian gospel message. Sometimes called dogmatics (Greek “dogma” = “that which seems [good],” “opinion,” “thought”), doctrinal theology presents the big picture of Christian doctrine (Latin “doctrina” = “teaching”), that is, what presentday Christians “believe, teach, and confess” (to use language from the Lutheran Formula of Concord).5 It does so on the basis of the biblical injunction: “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and humility” (1 Pet. 3.15-16). If Christian doctrine is the teaching that God intends people to receive and believe regarding divine revelation and the truth of the gospel, and “dogmatics” refers to the whole of that instruction, doctrinal theology clarifies the content of that teaching. “It has as its task, then, the comprehensive and coherent presentation of the doctrinal

5. OED, 462, 464; BDAG, 254; Formula of Concord (Epitome), BC, 486.

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

content of Scripture and the articles of faith (articuli fidei), in the sense of both positive restatement and learned argumentation.”6 Although doctrinal theology is clearly related to the history of Christian dogma, it is different from that subdiscipline of historical theology because of its concern to provide a contemporary, systematic account of Christian teaching (“systematic theology”). To fulfill that task doctrinal theologians must take into account the changed intellectual and cultural situation in which they stand in relation to previous situations or epochs in the history of Christianity. To be sure, the doctrinal theologian strives to bring forward into the present whatever is unchangeable in theology and unaffected by the passing of epochs, but doctrinal theology is not simply the passing on of past theological understandings in toto. Doctrinal theology changes over time precisely because the people engaged in it change over time. It cannot be burdened with aspects or content that are no longer necessary, if they ever were. Not every problem in the history of Christian theology is of abiding importance, and novel problems arise for which easy solutions are not available from the past. Because all theologies, including Christian doctrinal theology, are constantly confronted with the question of contemporary validity, they must be undertaken ever anew. Christian theologians in the second and subsequent centuries could fulfill their tasks as theologians as little as could the apostles by merely reciting a monotonous formula or using the same language as previous believers. The challenge in every age is to set forth the substance of the apostolic gospel by also taking into account the diverse people to whom that gospel promise is addressed and how best to convey it within new situations. Doctrinal theology cannot escape the dynamics of history. Moreover, any attempt at a coherent, systematic presentation of Christian teaching is always in need of revision. One cannot avoid returning again and again to the historical sources of that theology and to the perennial questions that have given rise to it. In this way questions in theology remain open and the answers to them provisional. This understanding of theology should be sufficient to ward off criticism that doctrinal theology is merely the authoritative transmission of an uncritical orthodoxy. The history of Christian theology investigates the development of theological ideas in the course of the history of Christianity. The study of this development is not limited to formal expressions of church teaching (as if it were merely a subdiscipline of church history) but includes the reflections of individual theologians and religious philosophers (who might have a tenuous relationship to Christianity) on key themes in Christian theology. Thus, the history of theology focuses on the main dogmatic issues in the history of Christianity (the doctrine of God, theological anthropology, the person and work of Jesus Christ, church sacraments, and so on) and how these issues have been understood theologically over time. Attention is given, for example, 6. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.18.

503

504

Fundamental Theology

to the development of the various creeds and confessions in church history, both those that have developed in the context of the church’s liturgy (baptismal creeds) and in conflict over true and false teaching (creeds that developed in opposition to specific heresies, such as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed that condemned Arianism). Following the crucial conclusion of the eighteenth-century historian Johann S. Semler (see Chapter 2), historical theologians over the past two centuries have stressed the need to attend to the ways in which the theological language and thought-forms of earlier Christian thinkers have been shaped by the historical and social situations in which these thinkers lived and moved and had their being. The use of historical-critical methods for investigating that history is central to the discipline, even if there is also widespread awareness today regarding the need to investigate the historical theologian’s own intellectual presuppositions and social-cultural location. While the principal methods and goals of the subdiscipline of historical theology are the same as those in history and the social sciences, what distinguishes the history of theology from all other historical and social investigations of intellectual history is the degree to which the historian allows the theological subject matter within the historical sources to persist and even become prominent. The goal here is not merely to understand past Christian sources as intellectual artifacts of the history of Christianity, as important as those artifacts might be in their own right, but to analyze those sources theologically and critically and to draw from them those insights that can be brought forward into contemporary doctrinal systematic theology (and to criticize those aspects that are outdated, flawed, or insignificant). As historical theologian Robert Wilken (b. 1936) says, “It is not sufficient, then, for historical theology to reconstruct the meaning of texts in their historical setting, to observe changing conceptions from one generation to another, and to note the differences between those who lived in former ages and ourselves.”7 Historical theology must continually inquire after the theological subject matter that unifies the discipline of theology as a whole. If biblical theology strives to allow the canonical biblical writings to speak theologically to the present, and if doctrinal theology strives to systematize a coherent summary of the Christian faith for the present moment, the history of Christian theology seeks to identify the significant Christian voices from the past that still have something important to say with respect to biblical and doctrinal theology. One thinks in particular of early church conciliar decisions (e.g., Nicaea, Chalcedon) and of the writings of the “doctors of the church” (at least the ones prior to the fifteenth century, whose importance Protestants also acknowledge), whose reflections continue to be an influence upon contemporary understandings of the key themes in Christian theology. One also thinks of other “classic” thinkers in the tradition, such 7. Robert Wilken, “Historical Theology,” in A New Handbook of Christian Theology, ed. Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 229.

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

as the sixteenth-century Reformers and those significant nineteenth- and twentiethcentury figures whose writings continue to provide important insights to all who are thinking about theology today.8 So the history of Christian theology is also an important component in the bridge between historical theology and contemporary fundamental theology. It aims to show how both of these subdisciplines pursue the formulation of Christian teaching at the present time. The history of Christian theology also helps to address the widespread ignorance that many university students seem to have about the development of Christian thought between the first century and the present, a development that has significantly shaped the course of Western civilization and that is even now shaping large areas of the contemporary world. By following the trains of thought in the classic figures in the history of Christian theology, by thinking with them, one can learn how the basic concepts within Christian theology have grown out of the circumstances in which they were first formulated. What were the rationales that were given for specific theological positions in Christian history? What were the authoritative judgments that these figures made about what is central and peripheral, normative and heretical, abiding and transitory in the history of Christian thought? What can and should we learn from past theologians? The history of Christianity, classically called church history, investigates the development of the Christian institutions as intellectual, spiritual, cultural, social, political, economic (etc.) phenomena. The academic discipline of the history of Christianity seeks both historical and theological understanding, but what distinguishes this academic discipline as a theological one, in contrast to other scholarly approaches to the history of Christianity, is the degree to which the scholar allows properly theological issues, judgments, and claims to be raised. As Gerhard Ebeling rightly noted, the dissociation of theology from church history can become a source of bad theology.9 Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that many important insights into the history of Christianity have been made by nonChristian scholars. What is the theological significance of the history of Christianity? What is the relation of the churches as social and political entities to the formulation of theological understanding or misunderstanding? While church history is not a primary source of theological knowledge, it does inform the theological task in central ways. For example, the meaning of Christian Scripture is in some sense tied to the history of its interpretation (or misinterpretation), and thus church history helps to show how churches have understood and applied the Scriptures in the past. Church history also 8. I am here using the term classic in the sense that my teacher David Tracy has articulated in his classic book The Analogical Imagination, 99–159. 9. Gerhard Ebeling, “Discussion Theses for a Course of Introductory Lectures in the Study of Theology,” in Word and Faith, 429.

505

506

Fundamental Theology

explores the development of church traditions and their applications in the life of the churches. Much of this history is a history of conflict over the nature of church traditions, and thus the historian has the duty of uncovering the underlying causes of these tensions and disagreements. What is all the fuss about? Or what was it all about? Such questions invite repeated investigation. Moreover, the history of Christianity, as an academic discipline, provides a critical service over against contemporary (mis)understandings of the churches, their teachings, and practices. For this reason it is perhaps better to speak of “the history of Christianity” rather than “church history,” since much of that history involves more than merely “the church” (as a doctrinal teaching and a matter of the confession of faith) or “the churches” (as individual instances of Christian community in the world). This shift in focus from “church” to “Christianity” is evident in the history of the publication of the principal North American academic journal in this field. There one detects a movement away from broad topics and themes in “church history” to narrower, more specialized studies of issues, problems, and figures in the history of Christianity and its historic manifestations in diverse cultures.10 Focusing on the manifold character of “Christianity” rather than merely on the doctrinal concept of “church,” one will be led to uncover aspects of the “tradition” that have been lost or forgotten or not widely known in the first place. Recent scholars, for instance, have uncovered forgotten voices and lives in the history of Christianity—women, for example—and have recognized their power to speak to the present.11 Thus, scholarly conclusions in this subdiscipline often disabuse people of their wrong notions of the church, its history, its teachings, and its practices. The execution of this scholarly discipline has a way of disrupting comfortable understandings of “church,” or at least of complicating them. It demonstrates that there never has been a time when one unambiguously demonstrable “church” has ever existed. There has always been a plurality of churches, and this fact complicates a theological understanding of “church.” While Christian theology in North America still remains largely Eurocentric and North American in nature, the study of the history of Christianity reveals how the diversity of the world’s cultures has influenced the shape and content of Christian theology in global contexts. Other, nontheological factors can become central in the history of Christianity and the history of Christian thought. In other words, the history of Christianity as an academic discipline “combats the illusion that theology has only to do with 10. See Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, a quarterly journal that has been published by the American Society of Church History since 1911. The subtitle was added in the 1990s to reflect this change of focus beyond merely the Christian “church.” 11. See especially Barbara J. MacHaffie, Her Story: Women in Christian Tradition, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2006); and Nicola Denzey, The Bone Gatherers: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women (Boston: Beacon, 2007).

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

theology.”12 Can one, for example, understand the development of the fourth-century Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed without appreciating the political complexities within the Roman Empire of that time and how they affected that development? Can one understand the theology of Augustine of Hippo without attention to the political and social factors of fourth- and fifth-century Milan and North Africa? Can one even begin to understand the Protestant Reformers’ criticism of papal authority in the sixteenth century without first appreciating the crisis that developed for the Roman Church when the humanist scholar Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) demonstrated that the Donation of Constantine was in fact a forgery? Can one understand the theological development of the various Protestant groups in sixteenth-century Europe without attention to geopolitical, economic, and social factors? Investigation into the history of Christianity will uncover the “mishmash of error and violence” that often lurk behind theological decisions and the exercise of church authority.13 Such investigation will probe more deeply into the well-known and not-so-well-known scandals in that history. Furthermore, it will wrestle with the interaction between what is perceived to be “essentially Christian” and what is not. Insofar as properly theological issues surface within the study of the history of Christianity, one will be led back to questions regarding the relation of Jesus (understood to be the historic origin of “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”) to all later phenomena within that historical development. As in the study of biblical and doctrinal theology so also in the study of the history of Christianity as a theological discipline, the scholar will continually wrestle with hermeneutical, interpretive, and theological issues. These issues are not limited to problems of understanding in the history of biblical interpretation or to applications of biblical teaching in the history of Christian communities. The church historian also desires to interpret biographies of Christians, institutions, liturgies (forms of worship), programs, the actions of individuals and communities (and the theological motivations for those actions, if any can be detected), suppressions of truth, persisting theological expressions across the centuries, and human suffering and lived human experience in relation to Christianity. When historians of Christianity seek to understand such phenomena, they are likely to have to address at least some theological concerns. Such matters arise, for example, when one struggles to make sense of historical phenomena in relation to the truth claims of Christian faith, specifically the claim that the eternal Word of God has become incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth and that this claim has significant consequences for one’s understanding of

12. Ebeling, “Discussion Theses,” 429. 13. Johann W. Goethe, Letter to Zelter of March 27, 1824, as quoted in Karl Löwith, From Hegel to Nietzsche: The Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Thought, trans. David E. Green (New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1964), 227.

507

508

Fundamental Theology

reality as a whole. In this way the interrelation of “truth” and “history” remains open to repeated investigation. The theological dimension of the history of Christianity, as an academic discipline, also arises when one explores one’s own faith commitments and theological presuppositions in relation to one’s scholarly work as an historian of Christianity, when one’s faith provides a perspective or insight upon one’s interpretation of relevant historical phenomena, when basic questions of faith remain open to further investigation, and when one attempts “to reflect theologically upon Church history using historical approaches.”14 No one approaches the history of Christianity as an empty computer. There is no such creature as a presuppositionless historian of Christianity! Precisely because of the immensity and diversity of material in the history of Christianity, much of which remains ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, one needs to recognize that no individual scholar or even group of scholars can possibly master its breadth and complexity as a whole, even if one’s theological commitments lead one to make judgments about that “whole” and about specific individual parts or pieces within that historical whole. There is thus the need for humility, openness to correction, repeated attentiveness to the primary source materials, and respectful engagement with the work of other scholars who are investigating the same phenomena. Because this field of study is so large and complicated, the beginning student would do well to focus on the one-volume surveys of church history that are listed in the bibliography at the end of Chapter 1. These works provide an initial, broader picture in large frameworks. Such resources are a good place to begin one’s historical study of Christianity, before moving on to appreciate how the picture changes in its details as a result of more specialized study.

Practical theology Practical theology investigates the actions of Christians within their various congregational-communal-social settings and inquires into the theological reasons for those actions. It is “theology” only to the extent that it also participates in the investigation of that which fundamental and historical theology investigate, namely, the subject of Christian theology. Practical theology continually inquires about the relation of that subject to actual praxis (action) within specific communities of Christian faith. While the scholarly character of practical theology has been criticized over the past two centuries as being too focused on “the church” (and 14. Euan Cameron, Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches’ Past (New York: Blackwell, 2005), vii.

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

thus many have wondered if it really belongs within a university curriculum), its position within the circle of the theological disciplines can be defended as long as it maintains its relationship with the other two subdisciplines and underscores their relationship to the actual lived experiences of Christians in their congregational and social settings. With regard to method, practical theologians are particularly guided by the social sciences, although they also engage the other sciences that shed light on human behavior and on the beliefs and motivations that are related to that behavior. This type of practical theology delves deeply into past Christian spiritual and ethical practices and attempts to apply them to contemporary settings.15 Practical theology within academic communities, whether undergraduate or graduate, often occurs informally outside of the academic curriculum as members of the community undertake actions that are related to Christian faith. Most obviously this might take place in the context of a university or seminary chapel, its worship services, and its extracurricular activities. For example, many students will reflect upon their personal faith (or the faith of others) in relation to the social actions they undertake as students (e.g., raising money for the poor, giving food to the hungry, building homes for the homeless, seeking to end racial inequality, etc.). Or they will inquire about the theological understanding of preaching or the sacraments or other Christian ritual actions. Or they will wonder about appropriate ethical action in relation to some significant problem or set of problems. They will thus engage in political theology and the praxis that is related to it. Within a curricular setting, however, practical theology at the graduate or professional level looks different from what it is at the undergraduate level. In a graduate context, practical theology tends to focus on the training of church leaders for their specific practical tasks within a congregational setting or in the context of a churchrelated institution or program. Here practical theology is largely about teaching people basic objectives, skills, and techniques for their practical administration of Christian communities. Thus, it often tends to be mostly a matter of pastoral theology, of educating and training individuals for their role of “shepherding” a congregation or serving as a leader in a church-related or para-church (“alongside the church”) organization. So graduate or seminary students learn to develop and lead Christian worship services, to preach, to administer church sacraments, to provide pastoral care and counseling, and to be involved in community organizing. More recently practical theology at this professional level has both broadened and sharpened its focus to include reflection on the actions of communities of faith within their particular social-historical setting and on the need for transformative praxis (action) in the world. Feminist and liberation theologians have been at the forefront of this 15. See, for example, Dorothy Bass, ed., Practicing Our Faith, 2nd edn (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010); and Dorothy Bass and Susan R. Briehl, eds., On Our Way: Christian Practices for Living a Whole Life (Nashville: Upper Room Books, 2010).

509

510

Fundamental Theology

reformation within practical theology. They have continued to maintain the vision of Schleiermacher, where practical theology is the crown and goal of the theological disciplines. Practical theology at the undergraduate level takes a slightly different shape and does not serve as the goal of the theological disciplines. Here it is less oriented toward equipping future pastors or church leaders for their practical vocation within the actual life of a Christian congregation or church-related organization, though it may include this. It is more broadly focused on the practical impact of Christian theology upon an individual’s “vocation(s)” or “calling(s)” in the world, callings that may have very little to do with preaching, administration of sacraments, pastoral care and counseling, or even community organizing. Practical theology at the undergraduate level focuses less on the preparation of clerical professionals and their vocation of equipping others for Christian action in the world than it does on the study of the complex experiences of Christians within their own vocation (in the broader sense of calling to responsibility in their communities and world), within their congregations and communities, regarding their actions and endeavors, and their understandings and applications of personal and social ethics. Practical theology is thus about “faith  and life,” about how faith is put into practice, how faith is lived experience. While practical theology at this undergraduate level will also examine the socialhistorical context of Christian communities of faith and learn from the insights of liberation and feminist theologians, it will seek to engage individuals in reflection on their own vocation of faith, their own calling(s) in the world, whatever these might be or become, and upon the social and communal aspects of their faith. As at the graduate level, so also at the undergraduate level, practical theology critically appropriates insights and findings from the various social sciences and engages in theological reflection on human action. Certainly all three subdisciplines of theology have a relationship to the present, to current understandings of reality, and to contemporary domains of life (politics, economics, social phenomena such as family structures, and the environment). Yet practical theology is especially focused on the present situation of the church and its activities, upon communal (congregational, synodical, denominational, ecumenical) formation and actions, and upon the vocation and ethical actions of individual Christians; and it is concerned to understand and evaluate those activities and actions in light of theological principles and findings from the other two subdisciplines. So practical theology does, in fact, belong in the undergraduate curriculum after all, precisely because it focuses on the theological idea of “vocation”: Vocation, because it involves on the one hand matters of identity and destiny, questions of who we are and why we are here and what we might become, belongs to the discourse of liberal education. But because vocation also involves a summons to particular kinds

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

of work in the world, it belongs as well to the discourse of the professions. Indeed, the idea of vocation, rightly understood, cuts across the domains of the social sciences and humanities, the performing arts, and the learned professions … Vocation has the capacity to imbue those who are called with a sense of responsibility, with an ethical dimension to their actions in the world; the liberal arts have the potential to render action in the public domain reasonable, articulate, and effective.16

Practical theology assists the liberal arts by constantly returning to the theological roots of the idea of vocation, to the examination of Christians and the communities in which they live out their vocation(s), and to the theological aspects of personal and social ethics. Ecclesial Studies, a subdivision of practical theology, investigates Christian institutions and activities as they exist or occur at the present time. Although such study may examine individual Christian congregations as social phenomena, this subdivision explores what is church-wide, ecumenical, trans-denominational, and occurs even beyond the organized churches or para-church organizations. Thus, the name ecclesial studies is more appropriate than congregational studies, which term is simply too parochial and narrow. Ecclesial studies seeks both sociological and theological understanding of contemporary church-related phenomena. Such study could focus quite narrowly on a local congregation, its demographics, its church practices and activities. For example, one might explore theological understanding of a particular church’s liturgy (forms of worship), ritual actions (sacraments), homiletics (preaching), liturgical art and architecture, or congregational programs. What is the theological meaning of Christian liturgy?17 What are a congregation’s “stories and structures,” and how do they help to embed a congregation in its social setting?18 How is Christ mediated to the world through the activities of empirical churches? How does the church communicate the gospel in the present moment? One might also compare the activities of a given church, its proclamation of the word and administration of grace through sacramental means, its educational programs, its visual arts, with those of a church from a different confessional or theological background.

16. Mark Schwehn, “Lutheranism and the Future of the University,” The Cresset 73 (December 2009): 8–9. 17. The range of literature in liturgical studies is large, but a good place to begin are the following important studies: Gordon W. Lathrop, Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993); Marva J. Dawn, Reaching Out without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for This Urgent Time (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Benjamin Dueholm, Sacred Signposts: Words, Water, and Other Acts of Resistance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018); and Frank Senn, Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). 18. One of the best explorations of this aspect of practical theology is James F. Hopewell, Congregation: Stories and Structures (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).

511

512

Fundamental Theology

More broadly, ecclesial studies also address larger “macro-church” or parachurch institutions and activities. For example, one could focus on the theological, social, and political actions of the worldwide ecumenical organizations, such as the Lutheran World Federation or the World Council of Churches, or one could focus on current missionary activities in one part of the world or another. Or one might look at a cluster of complex social, economic, and political issues that affect Christian communities in their present local settings. What is their role in “faithbased” initiatives or community activities? How should Christians respond to the ongoing issue of world poverty?19 Still further, one might explore the theological understandings of health and healing per se, as well as the theological and ethical perspectives that shape the ethos and practices of hospitals and health clinics, as well as institutions and individuals who are responding to global health issues.20 The list of possible areas of study are as broad and complex as the extent of Christian involvement in the world. In any case, regardless of what aspect of the Christian church one investigates, what distinguishes this kind of ecclesial study from purely social-scientific analysis and criticism or aesthetic criticism (in the case of liturgical art and architecture) is the degree to which properly theological issues, judgments, and claims are allowed to factor into one’s investigation. To one degree or another, every instance of ecclesial phenomena points beyond itself to its historical origin and to properly theological questions: Is this phenomenon consistent with the normative sources of Christian theology? What is the faith dimension of this particular empirical reality or action? How is this a manifestation of the church as “the body of Christ” in the world? What is the relationship of this phenomenon to the present mission of the church? What is appropriate within the contemporary church’s life and mission? Like the discipline of historical theology, ecclesial studies examine the church as a social phenomenon (or set of phenomena), but it focuses more directly on the present situation of the church and not on past developments. Like fundamental theology, ecclesial studies has the challenge of constantly calling the church and its practices into question. It, too, is concerned with making judgments about what is peripheral and central in the Christian community, what is normative, and what is subject to negative criticism within the present existence of the church and its involvement with the world. The place of theological ethics or moral theology within Christian theology is a matter of dispute. Some scholars see it as a subdiscipline within doctrinal theology, since it addresses the principles of Christian moral theology in the world today. 19. Susan R. Holman, God Knows There’s a Need: Christian Responses to Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 20. Susan R. Holman, Beholden: Religion, Global Health, and Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

Others view it as a subdiscipline within practical theology, since its goal is the practical application of the principles of Christian moral theology in the actual lives of Christians and their communities of faith in the world today. While doctrinal theology concerns the underlying doctrines and teachings that serve as the foundation for how Christians should live, practical theology addresses how those teachings should be applied in specific, actual situations. While most scholars rightly distinguish “ethics,” which is concerned with theory, from “morals,” which address specific behaviors or actions, in the execution of theological ethics this distinction is not always clear, nor can it always be maintained. Indeed, this overlapping of ethics and morals also makes the place of Christian theological ethics within a theological encyclopedia ambiguous. Certainly, while Christian doctrine cannot be separated from the practical concerns of Christian ethics or moral theology, it must be distinguished from the latter for the sake of properly distinguishing faith in the gospel promise from the good deeds that flow as a consequence of that promise. Even Barth acknowledged this when he clearly distinguished the themes of Christian doctrine/dogmatics from those of Christian ethics within his overall dogmatics. He too acknowledged that Christian faith is entirely a matter of passive reception, as do most other Protestants out of concern for the gospel promise (which can only be received by faith), and not something that is identical to human action or behavior. The gospel does not have the character of law, which addresses human beings in their activity. Fundamental and doctrinal theology are not always practical. As Ebeling rightly stated, “Theology as such is not ethics.”21 Its principal focus must always be a theoretical concern for the truth of Christian theology and for the centrality of the promise of the gospel. Practical theology, on the other hand, is always focused on a pragmatic concern to apply Christian teaching in the lives of Christians and to explore how that teaching intersects with the needs of the world. Consequently, theological ethics is best placed within practical theology, although it is always closely related to the other subdisciplines, especially doctrinal theology. Christian ethics is to be distinguished from all other religious and philosophical ethics to the extent that it allows the subject of Christian theology to shed light on one’s understanding of the questions, “How should I live?” “How should we live as a society?” “How should we live as a human community on this fragile planet?” Within a theological context, these questions multiply into many others: “How does God want me/us to live and act? What is the will of God in this particular, concrete situation? How am I to live before God? What am I to do now, given my Christian understanding of God, the world, and myself?” Thus, ethical discussion within Christian theology is constantly oriented toward the ethical and moral consequences of one’s faith in God. Its focus is on the present and the future. What is the relation between Christian faith in God or understanding of God, on the 21. Ebeling, The Study of Theology, 149.

513

514

Fundamental Theology

one hand, and Christian moral action, on the other? What do I understand about myself as a child of God and about all other people? For what am I responsible? For what are we responsible? To whom are we responsible? What are my/our duties? How does one address the moral failures of others and of oneself? In view of the connectedness of “fate,” responsibility, and human freedom to make ethical choices, what is the nature of the human consciousness of fault, of guilt, of shame, of sin (which is entirely a religious/theological concept)? How does one make theological sense of ethical situations in which one cannot avoid guilt, regardless of one’s chosen course of action? What is the nature of Christian love, and what are its consequences? How about situations in which people pride themselves on their moral accomplishments and somehow think they count positively toward their good standing before God? Jesus had some rather harsh words for people who arrogantly thought they were religiously and ethically perfect. Both the moral weakness of human nature and the moral strength of human beings comes under criticism within Christian theological ethics. In many respects, such ethics complicates philosophical ethics by raising questions that point toward the limits of a purely philosophical approach to ethics and that underscore the religious and theological dimensions of ethical life and one’s reflection upon it. To be sure, the Christian ought to make use of ethical insights from beyond the circle of Christian theology, to be attentive to lasting insights from the history of philosophical ethics that began with Aristotle. The modern Christian is especially concerned to analyze and criticize conceptions of human freedom and autonomy in philosophical ethics and to explore their potential continuity and discontinuity with Christian theological anthropology. The history of Christian ethics demonstrates that theological ethics is intertwined with the history of philosophical ethics and of efforts to base human action on nontheological, entirely rational (universal) presuppositions. One needs only to mention the influence of Stoicism on early Christian ethics and the respective influences of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Kant’s moral philosophy, and Marxist and feminist social analysis on contemporary forms of Christian ethics to show this intertwining. Of course, each of these influences is contested among Christian theologians, and all of them have come under fire from one quarter or another because they are perceived to be in contradiction to central assumptions of Christian faith and understanding. Nevertheless, contemporary Christian ethics does not occur in isolation from the larger context of philosophical ethics. It is concerned to analyze and interpret the same existential, ethical realities that all human beings face in their lives and communities. Despite its openness to the valid ethical insights and analysis from beyond the circle of Christian theology, Christian ethics takes its fundamental orientation from the gospel promise, which is received by faith, and from the concrete character of Christian love. According to Paul, faith is “to be active in love” (Gal. 5.6). Thus,

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

Christian theological ethics will evaluate human behavior on the basis of these two normative foci and within that perspective try to assist people to make good decisions about their future courses of action. Of course, finding this good and right course of action is the great challenge, given the complexities and ambiguities of life and the ethical demands that come upon us. A challenge, too, is how to commend the doing of good actions without losing the gospel promise that is received by faith alone. From the perspective of Christian faith, the gift of God’s own goodness and righteousness to the individual provides that person with the proper starting point for ethical reflection. That grace of God provides a necessary context for discerning ethical demands and making ethical choices. It is central to the ethics of those who live from the promises of God.

Questions for review and discussion 1. What is fundamental theology? What are its goals? Do you agree that fundamental theology ought to be discussed first in any theological encyclopedia? Why does the author think so? 2. Many theologians will want to make biblical theology a separate subdiscipline of theology and not include it under “historical theology.” Why does the author place biblical theology where he does? Do you agree with this placement? Why or why not? 3. Why does the author prefer the designation “history of Christianity” rather than “church history?” 4. Why might some Christians argue that “Christian doctrine” or Christian teaching does not have “a history?” In other words, why might some Christians argue that Christian doctrine does not change over time? Do you agree with the author that Christian doctrine (or at least the theological understanding of that teaching) does in fact change over time? Why or why not? 5. Why does the author constantly insist on the properly theological character of each of the subdisciplines of theology and their own subbranches? 6. Why is the author critical of viewing “practical theology” as the goal of academic theology at the undergraduate level? Do you agree or disagree with the author on this point? 7. The term ecclesial comes from the Greek word for “church.” Why does the author stress that ecclesial studies examines more than merely “the church” or Christian congregations? Can you identify a couple of “para-church” organizations (i.e., organizations that are not a “church” but are largely organized by Christians and have a “Christian” basis or background)? 8. How might theological ethics be different from so-called philosophical ethics?

515

516

Fundamental Theology

9. What are the most important ethical questions of today? How might Christian teaching and practices address these questions? What is meant by the term praxis? 10. Which of the three subdisciplines most interests you for further study? Why? Which least interests you? Why?

Suggestions for further reading Roman Catholic fundamental theology Heinrich Fries, Fundamental Theology, trans. Robert J. Daly (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996). [A classic introduction to issues in fundamental theology by a leading twentieth-century German Catholic theologian. Fries begins with the anthropological orientation to God and the nature of faith. He then proceeds to examine the nature of divine revelation and the doctrine of the church.] Hans Küng, Does God Exist?: An Answer for Today, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Crossroad, 1991). [Exhaustive treatment of theism and atheism by one of the most important Catholic theologians of the past sixty years.] Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972). [Not really a work in fundamental theology, this work on theological method nevertheless is important for understanding one way of approaching topics that surface in Catholic fundamental theology.] Guy Mansini, Fundamental Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018). [An interesting account of Catholic fundamental theology that is guided by a retrieval of Thomistic theology. Mansini begins with divine revelation, tradition, and Scripture, and then proceeds to discuss church and dogma, the nature of faith, and finally the nature and task of theology.] Gerald O’Collins, Rethinking Fundamental Theology: Toward a New Fundamental Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). [An excellent introduction to the nature of Christian faith by a preeminent Catholic scholar of fundamental theology. O’Collins explores general and special revelation, Jesus, ecclesial tradition, the Bible, and the church. His work provides a contrary perspective on some similar issues treated in the present book.] Neil Ormerod and Christiaan Jacobs-Vandegeer, Foundational Theology: A New Approach to Catholic Fundamental Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). [A contemporary approach to issues of fundamental theology from the perspective of Lonergan. The authors examine various conversions—religious, moral, intellectual, and psychic—as a foundation for theological reflection. The book then proceeds to relate these conversions to traditional Catholic theological themes.] Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1978). [Still the best entry into Rahner’s understanding of the

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

basis for Christian faith within a progressive Roman Catholic framework. Like the present book, Rahner begins with analysis of human religious experience and then proceeds to explicate this experience on the basis of Christian symbols.] David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981). [Ground-breaking work that analyzes the social situation of the theologian and its impact on the theological task.] David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (Minneapolis: Winston-Seabury, 1975). [Sets forth Tracy’s Tillichian model of mutual-critical, correlational, revisionist theology.]

Protestant fundamental theology Because “fundamental theology” also embraces what Protestant Christians call “natural theology” and “philosophical theology,” see the works listed in the bibliography at the end of Chapter 5. Gerhard Ebeling, “Fundamental Theology,” in The Study of Theology, 153–65. [Ebeling’s understanding of fundamental theology has significantly shaped the presentation in this chapter.] Christian Link, “Natural Theology,” RPP, 9.55–7. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1.1–257. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis McDonagh (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976). [Pannenberg’s massive effort to situate Christian theology within the sciences and humanities in a typical German university. The final section of the book sets forth his understanding of the key subdisciplines.]

Ecclesial Studies Dorothy Bass, ed., Practicing Our Faith, 2nd edn (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010). [This book explores twelve central Christian practices—for example, honoring the body, hospitality, discernment, forgiveness, healing, and so on—examining the historical background of each, but also reexamining their ongoing relevance.] Dorothy Bass and Susan R. Briehl, eds., On Our Way: Christian Practices for Living a Whole Life (Nashville: Upper Room Books, 2010). [These essays, written from a variety of Christian perspectives, explore practical ways of answering the question, “What makes a good life?”] Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, 2nd edn (New York: Continuum, 2003). [Classic study of the historical development of the Eucharist. Has influenced liturgical studies for more than half a century.] Israel Galindo, The Hidden Lives of Congregations: Discerning Church Dynamics (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). [This work offers an excellent overview of the various shapes, models, and missions that Christian congregations can take. This book offers a complementary perspective to the work by Hopewell.]

517

518

Fundamental Theology

James F. Hopewell, Congregation: Stories and Structures (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). [Engaging sociological analysis of how Christian congregations function.] Institute of Liturgical Studies, Occasional Papers (Valparaiso, IN: Institute of Liturgical Studies, 1981–. https://scho​lar.valpo.edu/ils​_pap​ers/ (accessed July 28, 2023). [Ongoing studies of Christian liturgy and other aspects of congregational life.] Gordon Lathrup, Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) [A marvelous book that explores how Christian worship “may help us to imagine, understand, care for, and live in the world.”] Gordan Lathrup, Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). [An excellent theological analysis of what Christians do—or ought to do—when they gather to worship God.] Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). [A very helpful resource that contains nearly sixty chapters by a variety of authors who deal with all sorts of topics relating to practical Christian ministry in homes, church, and society. Excellent bibliographies.] Frank Senn, Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). [The best one-volume study of the Christian liturgy. Written by the leading American Lutheran liturgical scholar of the past half century.] Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). [An engaging account of themes in systematic theology on the basis of reflection on Christian worship life.] James F. White, Protestant Worship and Church Architecture: Theological and Historical Considerations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964). [Classic study of the connection between Christian theology and church architecture.]

Ethics James F. Childress and John Macquarrie, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, rev. edn (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). [An older but still quite useful reference work in the subdiscipline of theological ethics. It is good for getting an historical background on abiding issues in Christian ethics.] James M. Childs Jr., Ethics in the Community of Promise: Faith, Formation, and Decision (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006). [An important contribution to ethical reflection by a Lutheran ethicist.] Roger H. Crook, An Introduction to Christian Ethics, 6th edn (Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012). [This is a good place for the college student to begin the study of Christian ethics. Offers summaries and assessments of a wide variety of Christian ethical positions.] Charles Curran, The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: A Synthesis (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1999). [Provides an overview of the Roman Catholic moral tradition and its reassessment by a major Catholic ethicist.] James M. Gustafson, Christ and the Moral Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). [A classic study of various ways in which key Christian theologians have asked

The Subdisciplines of Christian Theology

and answered the question, “Does Jesus Christ make any difference to the Christian’s moral life?” In the final chapter, Gustafson, one of the most important Christian ethicists of the past century, offers his own constructive proposal for relating Christ to the moral life.] Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (South Bend: Notre Dame Press, 1991). [A helpful introduction to the ethical reflections of a leading postmodern Christian theologian.] Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006). [Hauerwas, one of the major Christian ethicists of the past half century, and Wells, an influential Anglican ethicist and writer, approach ethics through the lens of Christian worship, which shapes the moral life of Christians. In this way they restore the integral connection between Christian ethics and theology.] Robin W. Lovin, An Introduction to Christian Ethics: Goals, Duties, Virtues (Nashville: Abingdon, 2011). [Discusses various theological possibilities within Christian ethics so as to lead students to reflect on how they would think and act morally. Provides a number of test cases with which to test out ethical options.] Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics, 2nd rev. edn (New York: Routledge, 2002). [An excellent overview by the most influential American Roman Catholic ethicist of the past half century.] Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). [A very helpful introduction to basic issues in bioethics by a Valparaiso University professor of ethics.] Gilbert Meilaender and William Werpehowski, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). [The standard reference work for Christian theological ethics in the English language.] Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip Watson (New York: Harper & Row, 1969). [A major, controversial study of “the Christian idea of love” by an important Lutheran theologian.] Servais Pinkaers, The Sources of Christian Ethics, 3rd edn (Baltimore: Catholic University Press, 1995). [Widely used textbook in Roman Catholic moral theology. An excellent resource for theological ethics from a Roman Catholic perspective.] Trutz Rendtorff, Ethics, 2 vols, trans. Keith Crim (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986–9). [The first volume examines theological principles that shape and inform ethical reflection from a Lutheran perspective. The second volume examines several ethical challenges and situations.] Jeffrey Stout, Ethics after Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents (Boston: Beacon, 1988). [A serious investigation of moral relativism and the problems attending to the lack of a shared ethical foundation or framework for moral discussion in public life.] Jeffrey Stout, The Flight from Authority: Religion, Morality, and the Quest for Autonomy (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981). [This classic work explores the nature of knowledge, the rationality of religious belief, and the autonomy of morality, all set against the background of modern arguments over “authority.”]

519

14 Christian Theology and the Humanities This chapter and the next one sketch ways in which Christian theologians seek interaction with other university disciplines. After briefly describing H. R. Niebuhr’s classic typology for possible ways of relating Christian theology to other domains of knowledge and culture, the chapter proceeds to highlight a dialectical, correlational way of relating theology to the humanities. The next chapter does the same for the natural and human sciences.

As we have noted in previous chapters, some theologians have argued that Christian theology is a kind of science or scholarly discipline in the university. Aquinas thought of theology as a theoretical science that presents a rational exposition of its guiding principles that are grounded in divine revelation and aided by Aristotelian philosophy. In his day, some theologians developed the view that Christian theology is “the queen of the sciences,” since it addresses the first principles upon which all the other sciences are premised. Since Aquinas’s day, other theologians have also defended the notion that Christian theology is a “science,” although they have differed among themselves as to its character. Some have defined it as the science of divine revelation (Hegel), others as the science of the divine Word (Barth), still others as the science of the Christian religion (Schmid), or the science of God (Pannenberg). Of course, in the eighteenth century a significant linguistic change too place, when the term science went from being a synonym for “knowledge” of any kind (including theological knowledge) to being restricted only to specific kinds of empirical/lawgenerating inquiries.1 Already in Aquinas’s day people were beginning to call into question the “scientific” character of Christian theology. As the natural sciences became more and more oriented toward empirical reality, and capable of understanding it without recourse to God, those who studied nature became less and less concerned with metaphysical

1. “Science,” OED, 1674.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

and theological speculations. These scholars wanted to be free from bondage to external authorities, especially religious and political ones. In view of the growing criticism of theology’s scientific character that began already in the fourteenth century, theologians took a different tack by trying to defend theology in the university as a practical science, one that focused not so much upon theoretical knowledge about God as upon matters of practical wisdom that would lead human beings to see God as their highest goal in life and after death. Within the period of Protestant Orthodoxy (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) theologians debated among themselves whether theology was more of a speculative, theoretical science or a source of practical wisdom for living in the light of God. As noted in Chapter 2, John Gerhard tried to keep both of these aspects together when he stressed that theology “treats God, the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. It observes God: how all things are in him, how they proceed from him, how they return to him, how they repose in him.”2 Schleiermacher modified this view when he spoke of the task of academic theology as providing a scholarly self-representation of the Christian-religious consciousness for the sake of the practical goal of educating and training future church leaders in the Protestant Prussian state church. In the execution of this task, the theoretical and practical interests of academic theology are in tension with each other. Although medieval scholars referred to Christian theology as the queen of the sciences, it has not always been so understood. Already under the influence of Augustine, some theologians in the early and medieval church regarded theology primarily as “wisdom” (sapientia) and not as “science” (scientia).3 For Augustine, the sciences sought to understand the world and its temporal things, whereas theology, true sapientia, attempted to understand the eternal God as the highest good of all things. While wisdom and science did not exclude one another, the goal of the sciences was the pursuit of knowledge of temporal things for the sake of the larger pursuit of wisdom. In this view, all temporal, worldly knowledge is to be oriented toward God, who is the highest good. This is a definition that fits with Gerhard’s seventeenth-century understanding as well. That medieval vision of education has largely disappeared in our world. Nevertheless, some contemporary scholars are calling for greater educational “wholeness,” “integration,” and “interdisciplinary cross-fertilization” within undergraduate higher education. They seek to keep together “science” and “divine wisdom,” despite not fully knowing how to achieve that goal, given the loss of philosophical and theological coherence that allowed the university disciplines some measure of commonality in ages past. There is a growing awareness of how the fragmentation of knowledge and greater specialization within the disciplines threaten “long-term intellectual, cultural 2. Gerhard, On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, “Preface,” §29 (41–2). 3. See Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, 8–10.

521

522

Fundamental Theology

and spiritual ecology.”4 Then, too, the psalmist’s question “What is a human being?” (Ps. 8.4) is not far from any university subject matter. Does any academic subject not deal in one way or another with this fundamental question? Does not the astronomer who focuses entirely on the study of distant phenomena in space not wonder, at some point, what the findings of such study might imply for the place and purpose of human beings in the universe? As we have noted, Christian theology addresses this question as well. This question has become even more important in view of multiple scientific and technological developments in recent years. For example, what are the ethical and religious issues relating to CRISPR gene editing, which has revolutionized biomedicine and biotechnology by providing a simple means to engineer genes? Could the use of this technology lead to the creation of “superhumans?” Still another example is the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). What are the ethical and religious issues relating to the creation of super intelligent AI? Could further developments in this area of research lead to machines taking control of human beings? Already now we see how easily AI can mislead people by mass producing biased, discriminatory, and “fake” information. One can imagine how this technology could negatively impact our already deeply polarized political environment, not to mention the unemployment rate, when more people might lose their jobs to super intelligent robotic machines (which may ultimately benefit only the superrich). Does the huge positive potential of these important technologies outweigh their serious negative risks? Indeed, what risks do these new technologies pose to human life and societies? What are the existential threats? What are the human motivations behind their development and use? How should humans use these new technologies? What limits, if any, should be placed upon them? Who decides? Surely, no one field or group of individuals ought to make such important ethical and social policy decisions on its/their own. Is there not a deep need here for conversation and consensus building across multiple disciplines and groups of people? And the question “What is the human being?” will certainly need to be part of the discussion. Of course, many individuals engaged in these developments would claim that only experts, perhaps in conjunction with elite policymakers, should make such decisions, and that ignorant masses should have no real purchase in how this is all managed. Such cries for interdisciplinary communication in both teaching and research help to highlight the ongoing importance of paying attention to theological perspectives from all religions, including Christianity, and to what light they might shed on a broad range of fields and new developments within the academy and institutes of technology.5 Such a theological approach would keep open the possibility that at least some theological understandings provide plausible ways of making sense 4. Ford, Christian Wisdom, 349. 5. On the need for further interdisciplinary dialogue within universities, see Ford, Christian Wisdom, 333–49; and Mike Highton, A Theology of Higher Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Christian Theology and the Humanities

of the universe and of human beings within it. The very fact that the discipline of Christian theology is included in a university setting offers the greater likelihood that interdisciplinary encounters will occur between theology and the other university disciplines, that they will have to take into account each other’s scholarly findings and perspectives, and that the whole of human knowledge and wisdom is greater than the individual bits and pieces of information that get generated in the separate disciplines. Moreover, as the philosopher Mary Midgley (1919–2018) has noted, our universe is too complex to be fully understood by any one tradition of scholarly inquiry.6 Anglican theologian Alister McGrath agrees: We need to make use of many “intellectual toolkits” in our encounter with reality, realizing the strengths and limits of each. We should use multiple angles of approach, offering us different windows into our world, and then try to integrate these multiple insights into a grander vision of our world.7

It is important to underscore that Christian theologians (and Christian scholars in general) have often addressed certain questions that nonreligious thinkers have largely ignored, including the one about the nature and purpose of the human being. Such Christians have drawn upon their ancient Scriptures and ethical resources to point out the limitations of human beings, their pride, and pretensions, as well as their uniqueness, dignity, creativity, and ethical responsibility. Human beings, Christian theologians have stressed, are neither “beast nor God.”8 These religious voices have sometimes served “as a valuable check on the ambitions and pretensions of the modern world, including its love affair with science and technology.”9 One can point, for example, to Christian thinkers, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, who resisted the promotion of eugenics and control of the mentally and physically disabled in the United States and elsewhere. During the past seventy-five years, many Christian thinkers have also raised critical questions about the technology of Within the American context, see especially George Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). See also Warren A. Nord, “Taking Religion Seriously in Public Universities,” in The American University in a Postsecular Age, ed. Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 167–85. 6. Mary Midgley, Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning (London: Routledge, 1992). See also Alister E. McGrath, “The Owl of Minerva: Reflections on the Theological Significance of Mary Midgley,” Heythrop Journal 61 (2020): 852–64. 7. Alister E. McGrath, “Afterword,” Science and the Doctrine of Creation: The Approaches of Ten Modern Theologians, ed. Geoffrey H. Fulkerson and Joel Thomas Chopp (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2021), 241. 8. Gilbert Meilaender, Neither Beast nor God: The Dignity of the Human Person (New York: Encounter Books, 2009). See also the essays in Imago Dei: Human Dignity in Ecumenical Perspective, ed. Thomas Albert Howard (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2013). 9. Mel Piehl, “Response to John T. McGreevy’s Catholicism: A Global History,” public lecture, Valparaiso University (April 17, 2023).

523

524

Fundamental Theology

nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Christian scholars raise similar moral questions in other domains of scientific endeavor and technological innovation. Within a university setting, the goals of such interdisciplinary dialogue are fairly straightforward: the pursuit of wisdom and insight, the furthering of intellectual growth and cultural-scientific literacy, the greater illumination of the interconnectedness of all legitimate knowledge, and greater clarity about matters of the common good. While academic theology will engage the knowledge and insights that come from other scholarly approaches, methods, and theories relating to its own subject matter, it will also seek to keep open those questions regarding the reality of God and the insights and understandings about human beings and the world that come from its own theological approaches to that subject. These latter points may serve as helpful correctives to overly optimistic or even potentially negative technological and scientific developments. The Christian theological tradition will bring to the academic table a perspective on the world that stresses that the deepest human issues—like sin, suffering, loss, and meaning in the face of death—cannot be fully resolved by political liberation, social progress, or technological advancement.10 One wonders what the future will bring if the humanities become even more marginalized than they are in university campuses around the globe and the wisdom they offer is further neglected in societies as a whole. Not surprisingly, many Christian scholars also underscore the need to integrate “faith and scholarship,” “love and learning,” “hope and research,” “scientific knowledge and wisdom,” although they disagree among themselves about how this is best achieved or what such “integration” actually looks like.11 What one believes about God, the world, and human beings does affect what one believes about the connections or relations between theology and other university disciplines. Certainly, the understanding that one has about God will undoubtedly shape one’s perspective on a whole host of intellectual matters. Despite disagreements about how best to relate one’s religious and theological insights to the much larger world of the academy and the still larger contexts of one’s society and the planet as a whole, Christian scholars tend to agree that bracketing one’s religious commitments and perspectives from these matters leads to a shortsighted, narrow range of vision. Many argue that the aforementioned pairings, however they are finally related or ordered, allow for a multitude of voices (often a cacophony, never a chorus, but sometimes a counterpoint) to be heard on a variety of academic subjects that are more or less related to the flourishing of humankind (at least one hopes) and to the pursuit of truth and happiness, insight and wisdom, 10. Piehl, “Response to John T. McGreevy’s Catholicism.” 11. See Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, eds., Scholarship and Christian Faith: Enlarging the Conversation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Christian Theology and the Humanities

beauty and goodness, and to informed, intelligent discussion about matters of the common, public, global good. We have already defined the academic discipline of Christian theology in Chapter 3, so we need not say anything further here about the distinctive contribution that the subject of Christian theology makes to the academy. Study of the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus, in order to appropriate the possible truth and wisdom within that witness, is a worthwhile intellectual pursuit for its own sake. But critical and self-critical inquiry into that witness also invites engagement with other disciplines, whose interests and subject matters overlap with that which Christian theology likewise investigates. Such engagement occurs in relation to the humanities and the sciences, which raise religious, philosophical, and theological questions about God, the world, and human beings.

Christ and culture Before identifying some of these encounters between Christian theology and the other university disciplines, however, one should note that Christian scholars have disagreed among themselves about the interdisciplinary character of Christian theology and its relation to so-called secular or “worldly” learning. American Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962) proposed the now classic typology that still provides insight into possible ways of relating “Christ” and “culture.”12 Niebuhr’s study of “the question of Christianity and civilization” suggests that there have been five basic ways or types in which Christians have tried to relate these two aspects of their lives: their “faith” (symbolized by “Christ”), on the one hand, and “civilization” (symbolized by “culture”), on the other.13 While both the terms Christ and culture are ambiguous, as Niebuhr himself acknowledged, and the typology is clearly somewhat artificial, Niebuhr’s study does help one to get at least a preliminary picture or map of several possible ways that Christian thinkers have related Christian theology to human culture and worldly knowledge and learning. (One must always keep in mind that a “map” is not the same as the “territory” it depicts!)14 The first type Niebuhr labeled “Christ against culture.” This type emphasizes an opposition between Christ and culture. Whatever human beings create and achieve, whatever is maintained by “the world,” is sinful, corrupt, opposed to Christ, and thus contrary to authentic Christian faith. In this view, the Christian is called to leave the 12. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951). 13. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 2. 14. Jonathan Z. Smith, Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1978).

525

526

Fundamental Theology

world, its truths, its values, and to follow only Christ. The Christian’s loyalty is solely to him, not to any human cultural society. This position is very “cut and dried,” “black and white.” The world is entirely evil and devoid of anything truly good, right, and beautiful. It is soon going to pass away and come under the judgment of God, and so the true Christian should forsake the world, its cultural artifacts, and be devoted solely to Christ and his word. There can be no compromise with “the world.” In this type, higher education is more or less rejected, since such education is too involved in the world and its cultural values. Tertullian best exemplified this attitude when he asked rhetorically, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”15 In other words, “What has pagan learning to do with the teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus?” “Absolutely nothing!” was Tertullian’s implied position, although it should be pointed out that he himself made good use of his classical pagan education. The other illustrative example that Niebuhr linked to this first type is Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), the great Russian writer who late in life became radically critical of all human art and the sciences. He attacked the prevailing culture of his day and stressed a peasant’s obedience to the Sermon on the Mount as the best example of authentic human life. (Tolstoy’s “peasant” outlook, it should be noted, was deeply ironic in that he himself was a supreme Russian aristocrat whose wealthy family had owned hundreds of peasants, and on whom he remained dependent, even after they were formally freed.) Søren Kierkegaard’s (1813–55) attack upon “Christendom” also fits here, as do all those Christian groups (e.g., the early Anabaptists) that separate themselves more or less from “the world.”16 Less extreme forms of this type operate in contemporary fundamentalist Protestant schools whose curricula oppose every teaching that is contrary to their interpretations of the Bible. The second type, which Niebuhr calls “the Christ of culture,” is the opposite of the first. This type stresses a basic and essential agreement between Christ and culture. There is no opposition. Whatever is good, right, and true about Jesus is identical to that which is good, right, and true within human civilization. Those who fit within this type sense no great tension between their Christian faith and the world. According to Niebuhr: On the one hand [those of this type] interpret culture through Christ, regarding those elements in it as most important which are most accordant with his work and person; on the other hand they understand Christ through culture, selecting from his teaching and action as well as from the Christian doctrine about him such points as seem to agree with what is best in civilization.17 15. Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics, 7 (ANF, 3.246). 16. Søren Kierkegaard, Attack upon “Christendom,” trans. Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968). 17. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 83.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

So they harmonize Christianity and whatever is dominant within their given culture. In this type, higher education is unconditionally affirmed as being fully consistent with the Christian faith. There can be no real tension or contradiction between Christ and what is set forth in universities and academies. For Niebuhr, the so-called Gnostic Christians best represent this view, since they sought to reconcile Jesus with the reigning Greek philosophy of their day, but he also points to the medieval Abelard and the nineteenth-century German Lutheran Albrecht Ritschl as additional examples. Within the history of higher education, this type has often led to the blending of Christ and culture in such a way that “Christ” is completely subsumed under secular knowledge and even lost altogether. One needs only point to the history of formerly church-related institutions (e.g., Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown) that have now become almost totally secularized. A particularly negative example of this type, one that Niebuhr does not provide, is the transformation of Jesus into an Aryan German by Christians in Nazi Germany. They tried to make Christianity completely compatible with their racist ideology. A similar kind of transformation is taking place today among white Christian nationalists in the United States. The other three types, which Niebuhr placed in the center of the Christian tradition, acknowledge in one way or another that Christ (or Christian faith) is not identical to human culture, but neither is Christ totally opposed to the world. What distinguishes these three types from each other is how they combine the two poles and understand their respective authority. The third type, which Niebuhr calls “Christ above culture,” seeks to blend Christ and culture in such a way that authentic human achievements point toward Christ as their true and ultimate perfection and completion, but neither Christ nor culture can be fully identified with the other. This third type stresses the incarnational and sacramental presence of God in the world that is full of suffering and injustice. The world is God’s creation and the object of God’s love and grace, which seek to transform and perfect the world. In this view, higher education is affirmed and celebrated, but it is authentic and has lasting value only in relation to Christ who completes and fulfills all knowledge and learning. The classic example of this third type is Aquinas. Although he was a monk who rejected the secular world (like the first type), he lived in a culture that was entirely shaped by the medieval Catholic Church. The civilization was a “Christian civilization.” With Christ as its head, the church governed and shaped every aspect of human life and culture. In that situation, one could stress, as Aquinas did, that human culture—the arts, philosophy, civic life, the classical and Christian virtues—has an integrity all its own but its benefit to human beings is limited. Human culture takes a person only so far. While it cannot be regarded as the realm of godlessness, human beings and their culture must nevertheless be perfected by divine grace. “Grace

527

528

Fundamental Theology

does not destroy nature but perfects it.”18 There is thus a continuity between human culture and the grace of Christ, though the latter is hierarchically superior to the former. This hierarchical, Christ-above-culture view is probably best exemplified in Aquinas’s medieval synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and orthodox Augustinian theology. Another example, not mentioned by Niebuhr, would be the vision of John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801–90), whose “idea of a university” is based on the Thomistic principle that grace fulfills and perfects nature, that knowledge and reason are servants to faith.19 The fourth type, “Christ and culture in paradox,” acknowledges the authority and integrity of both Christ and culture and seeks to uphold each, which, in its own way, has an independent authority for the Christian. People of this type “seek to do justice to the need for holding together as well as for distinguishing between loyalty to Christ and responsibility for culture.”20 While Christians’ ultimate faith and obedience are oriented toward Christ, they are called to live and act and think within the world and to embrace it as the arena in which God the Creator is working, even apart from Christ. In this view, the world is not entirely pagan and the Christian cannot really be separated from it. Moreover, God in Christ has forgiven the sinner who lives in the world by faith. Freed from the need to justify oneself before God and others, the forgiven sinner can be creative within the world, the arena in which to act in loving service to others. This “duality” of the Christian life, wherein the forgiven, sinful creature is simultaneously a sinner and a saint, creates an inevitable tension or polarity within the Christian, who lives fully by faith “in Christ” and lives fully “in the created/fallen world” at the same time. This side of heaven and eternity, the tension and polarity remain together, in a kind of paradox. This paradox concerns both the individual sinner/believer and God the Creator and Redeemer, who acts in two distinct though related ways in the world (the two reigns of God through law and gospel). Given this paradoxical view, one trusts that God is ultimately merciful toward sinners, that God continues to preserve creation and restrain evil, and that God has endowed God’s creatures “with a reasonable degree of common sense and civic responsibility.”21 18. Aquinas, ST, I.1.8 (obj. 2). 19. John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, ed. I. T. Kerr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), Preface, 6. 20. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 149. 21. Richard Solberg, “What Can the Lutheran Tradition Contribute to Higher Education?,” in Models for Christian Higher Education, ed. Richard T. Hughes and William B. Adrian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 74. See also Sydney E. Ahlstrom, “What’s Lutheran about Higher Education?—A Critique,” Papers and Proceedings of the 60th Annual Convention (Washington, DC: Lutheran Educational Conference of North America, 1974), 8–16. Ahlstrom identifies three streams within the larger Lutheran tradition that have shaped Lutheran higher education: the scholastic (Lutheran Orthodoxy), the pietistic (Pietism), and the critical (Rationalism, Enlightenment). All three have been important, but in the context of 1974, when the faculty of a North American

Christian Theology and the Humanities

This fourth type is best reflected in the theology of Martin Luther, a university professor who struggled with faith in a merciful God and lamented the fallen condition of sinful humanity (including especially his own) but who celebrated the good gifts of the Creator, including music, Greek and Roman literature, and his wife’s beer and wine. Luther encouraged the pursuit of creaturely knowledge in the university where he taught. He and Melanchthon and their fellow academic colleagues were committed both to the truth of the gospel that is revealed in Holy Scripture and to the use of human reason that is fully capable of uncovering legitimate knowledge within the natural order. Their version of “Christian humanism” endeavored to keep both of those terms in tension and creative interaction with each other, while emphasizing that human culture and reason could never save human beings and that faith was never a human or cultural achievement. It is worth being reminded now and then that proponents of this type, German Lutherans for the most part, founded and developed the important principle of academic freedom.22 The fifth and final type, the one that Niebuhr himself preferred, agrees that human beings and their creative works are fallen or perverted (a position reflected also in types one and four), and thus human culture is in some way to be opposed, but Christ is viewed as one who converts human beings and their culture away from sin and toward God. This “conversionist” type, which Niebuhr labeled “Christ transforming culture,” stresses the sovereignty of God over all creation. Since almighty God encounters the Christian in Christ in the present, the Christian “does not live so much in the expectation of a final ending of the world of creation and culture as in awareness of the Lord to transform all things by lifting them up to himself … This is what human culture can be—a transformed human life in and to the glory of God.”23 Christ thus transforms culture in a way that a type-four person thinks can only happen when Christ comes again. John Calvin is perhaps the preeminent figure in type five, since he worked toward the transformation of this fallen world into the kingdom of God on earth, although Niebuhr tries to make a case that Augustine’s mature view of “culture” also fits within this model. Proponents of this type understand Christ as the regenerator of human beings in their culture, of changing them from being self-centered to being Christ-centered. The so-called “Puritans,” who helped found the English colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were guided by this type of thinking. Lutheran seminary, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, was under attack by religious and cultural conservatives, Ahlstrom thought that the critical aspect needed to be highlighted: “Can an institution, a college, seminary, or university, regard itself as an embodiment of the Western tradition of higher learning if it abrogates the freedom of investigation? Can a Lutheran institution of any of these types maintain its intellectual health and credibility if it neglects or denies its own critical tradition?” (16). 22. Ahlstrom, “What’s Lutheran about Higher Education?—A Critique,” 14. 23. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 195–6.

529

530

Fundamental Theology

They attempted to make their communities into a model kingdom of Christ on earth. Their governments were thus entirely shaped by Christian principles. One must underscore the deep Reformed instinct to want to make the church, as well as individual Christians, into agents for “transforming” the wider societal culture into a closer approximation to the kingdom of God. This explains much of the (often admirable) American religious reform impulse, but also how that impulse gets into deep trouble when the culture starts resisting being transformed into church-like conditions. Within higher education, this model operates in Christian universities that seek to transform all knowledge into service of Christ. They often operate on explicitly Reformed Christian principles, as is the case at Wheaton College or Calvin University. Each of Niebuhr’s types has problems and challenges within an academic setting, even if each also has something important to contribute to a conversation about the place of Christian theology within the humanities and about the relation of theology to other university disciplines. While the first type warns us that Christ and culture are not identical, it too neatly makes a separation between the two. Such a dualistic view can lead Christians to be judgmental toward those who are not like themselves and to think that somehow they are free of the corrupting power of sin and the temptation to evil. Then, too, such a view does not acknowledge that even Christians make use of human reasoning and that God is working within creation, even apart from Christ and his followers, to bring about justice and love, goodness and beauty. Likewise, this first type often ends up with a very sectarian view of the church that is cut off from the rest of the church and the larger ecumenical world. This, too, restricts its vision and leads toward its isolation from both church and the academy. If the second type rightly acknowledges a continuity between Christ and culture and a frank acknowledgment that Christians need not be opposed to authentic truths and insights from non-Christian sources, it does not fully appreciate the contrast and/or tension between them, that all human beings are sinful, that “the world” often rejects “Christ,” and that Christ offers a word of promise that cannot be fulfilled by “the world.” The second type often runs into problems with the First Commandment, especially when proponents of this type completely eliminate “Christ” from any positive or critical consideration or when they transform the Christian faith into something that it is not. The second type can easily lead to the loss of Christian integrity within the academy or to the creation of a theological perspective that many Christians would no longer recognize as truly “Christian.” Although the third type is appealing to Christians who want to maintain a synthesis between their faith and the world in which they live and move, who highlight the ways in which their faith has shaped even this present “secular age” and who want to cooperate with all, believer and non-believer alike, in the pursuit of the common good, others point out that this type tends to be inherently conservative, authoritarian, and incapable of appreciating how Christ might be doing a new thing

Christian Theology and the Humanities

in human history and culture. While this type is not the only one which may succumb to the interference of the church within the university (e.g., when it dictates to the disciplines what their conclusions ought to be), it does seem prone to that danger. The fourth type, which has also sometimes led to cultural conservatism (and political quietism), has a different danger. Its position has contributed to a sharp separation between “Christ” and “culture,” as if each has its own separate domain and set of standards (similar to type one) that are largely unrelated. This type has, perhaps unwittingly, contributed to the further marginalization of theology within the academy, since most academic disciplines can seemingly get along just fine without theology sticking its nose into their work. Nevertheless, the fourth type has often been praised as one of the main ways in which Christian theology can function with integrity in a university alongside of other disciplines that also have their own integrity. Although Niebuhr himself thought the fifth type was the best because its goal is the transformation of all things in the service of Christ, it too has often led to a kind of “theocracy” or “Christocracy” in the domain of culture that many would judge to be oppressive toward both scholarship and the critical understanding of Christian faith. Must everything in human culture, including ideas that are generated within the university, be made captive to the mind of Christ? If so, does that process not necessarily jeopardize the integrity of culture? One’s position on the relation of Christ to culture will largely determine what one will say about the relation of Christian theology to the humanities and the sciences within the university. Some Reformed scholars, such as George Marsden (b. 1939), for example, insist that their Christian faith causes them to see matters within the university differently from their non-Christian counterparts and this difference leads to distinctively Christian forms of scholarship that are dissimilar to non-Christian forms.24 In this view, Christian theology (or reflection on one’s faith) has a priority above secular learning and generates a responsibility to bring all knowledge under the sovereignty of God and into the service of Christ. But other scholars might wonder if such a view does not inevitably lead to unnecessary conflict between Christian and non-Christian scholars and their work. Surely there is not something like “Christian mathematics” or “Christian astronomy” or “Christian physics,” is there? Must every intellectual pursuit within the academy ultimately be governed by “Christian principles” or viewed in relationship to the lordship of Jesus Christ, even if at the end of the day one acknowledges that there is something divine about mathematics and chemistry and even history, as implied in the Christian teaching about creation? Is not the world, as fallen as it is, still God’s creation that can be studied on its own terms, in distinction from the kingdom of Christ that is both present and not yet fully here? Admittedly, these are Lutheran questions, but they at least point toward some of 24. See footnote 5.

531

532

Fundamental Theology

the challenges that attend to the Reformed perspective. (And maybe Lutherans need to ponder more deeply the Reformed point, namely, that seeing all reality through a Christian intellectual lens affects one’s view of its deeper character and meaning. For example, seeing the stars through a Christian lens means that they are approached reverentially, as divine creations, and not only critically and neutrally. The stars are more than merely spectacular gas balls!) Still other scholars insist that one must maintain a strict separation between Christ and the secular academy. Here one encounters many examples from the first two types within Niebuhr’s paradigm. At one end of the spectrum, the academy becomes completely Christianized, because the secular pursuit of knowledge has nothing to do with Christ and must be rejected in favor of a purely Christian worldview (type one). Nothing that is contrary to this worldview, based as it is on very particularistic readings of the Bible, is allowed its say or its own integrity. Many so-called “Bible colleges” take this position, since they reject most Enlightenment scholarly presuppositions and the knowledge that has been generated by their use, especially in the natural sciences. Other schools, particularly from the Mennonite tradition, are less extreme in their rejection of Enlightenment ideals and emphasize the centrality of radical discipleship to Christ that transforms all learning. For them, Christian discipleship is more than mere “head knowledge,” since it involves practical action and “service learning.” At the other end of the spectrum, the academy becomes completely secularized, because whatever is “secular” and worldly fits completely with “Christ” and thus the ideals of the Enlightenment are totally congruous with the ideals of Christianity (type two). This view, which minimizes the tensions and contradictions between Christ and culture, has likely contributed to the transformation of some formerly Christian-based colleges and universities into religiously unaffiliated institutions. But do not both of these types, with their respective one-sided restrictions either in favor of “Christ” or “culture,” short-change what the other, subordinated pole is able to contribute to human knowledge and understanding? Though both types at least formally weaken or lessen the tensions and contradictions between the two poles, do they not in fact contribute to a narrower range of vision when it comes to knowledge of God, the world, and human beings? The strength of types three and four within an academic setting is the concern to study the world as it is, not imposing upon it or upon one’s study of it a particular Christian “worldview” or perspective, and then “to bring that world into dialogue with the Christian vision of redemption and grace.”25 This approach allows one to take seriously the religious and cultural pluralism that is found within the world without immediately trying to transpose them into Christian categories or to bring them under the sovereignty of God in service to Christ. Both types (three and four) acknowledge that Christians are “not of this world,” yet they are called to live within 25. Richard T. Hughes, “Introduction,” Models for Christian Higher Education, 6–7.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

the world as followers of Christ. Both types also acknowledge the sacramental presence and gifts of God that are mediated through created means and which form the people of God into a spiritual community. Likewise, both types allow the tensions and even contradictions between Christ and culture to remain in place, at least for the time being. The difference between types three and four is how they understand the resolution of those tensions and conflicts. Whereas type three stresses continuity between grace and reason, between faith and scholarship, between Christ and culture, type four emphasizes their ultimate discontinuity, since faith in Christ alone is what receives the promise of salvation. Type four is much more open to the notion that secular disciplines within the academy have an intrinsic secularity that can be fully comprehended “within reason alone.” While both types underscore the need for academic freedom and the responsible pursuit of the truth, type three tends to be less critical of formal ecclesiastical control and authority of academic institutions and will stress the ultimate harmony between authentic truth and what the church “believes, teaches, and confesses.” There is, then, perhaps less danger of absolute secularization occurring under type three than type four, although both types acknowledge that God is at work in the saeculum, the world, in ways that are also distinct from Christ. Finally, both type three and type four stress the role of theology within the whole of the university disciplines. This role is especially central for the interdisciplinary integration of knowledge, the critical dialogue or dialectical conversation between “faith and reason,” the pursuit of ethical responsibility within the world, and the bringing of a theological perspective to bear within the university.26 The brief sketches further on and in the final chapter are premised on a view of “Christian humanism” that is consistent with emphases in types three and four. These types seem a more fruitful way for pursuing interdisciplinary encounters between theology and other university disciplines.27

Christian theology within the humanities Because Christian theology is located within the humanities, whether seen as a subdiscipline within religious studies or as its own independent discipline, it

26. Pope John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, sec. 19, as given in Catholic Universities in Church and Society: A Dialogue on Ex Corde Ecclesiae, ed. John P. Langan (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1993), 236. 27. A strength of the Lutheran paradoxical approach to learning includes a deep awareness of the ways in which humans have negatively impacted the non-human world. Following Niebuhr’s fourth type, one need not embrace “posthumanism” or “antihumanism” in order to be critical of anthropocentric views of reality and of the ways in which humans are inflicting destruction on the non-human world around them.

533

534

Fundamental Theology

is understandable that it would emphasize dialogue with scholars from these academic subjects that are its closest neighbors. While there is some disagreement about which academic disciplines fall within “the humanities,” for our purposes we will use a venerable dictionary definition: the humanities involve “learning or literature concerned with human culture: a term including various branches of polite scholarship,” such as classic languages, literature, history, art, music, and philosophy.28 One can easily expand this list to include any academic discipline that relates to human creativity and culture, including religious studies, cultural studies, the visual arts, the performing arts (including music, dance, and theater), and film studies. One of the challenges and joys of academic theology is the opportunity to bring theology into dialogue with these other university disciplines. Given the challenges of maintaining the humanities within the general curriculum of universities today, theology ought to join those who argue for the value of the humanities, of their importance in liberal education, and of their abiding significance in relation to the pursuit of better ways of being human.29

Christian theology and religious studies Since Christian theology seeks insight and understanding about God, the world, and human beings on the basis of a particular religious tradition, it cannot avoid engaging other religious traditions that also make reference to God, the world, and human beings. Christian theology ought to be open to the investigation of other religious traditions, to gain insight and wisdom from them about matters that Christian theology also addresses, and to pursue interreligious dialogue as a way of clarifying both consensus and areas of disagreement among the religions. Moreover, since scholars of religious studies also investigate Christianity as a world religion, Christian theologians need to be attentive to modern theories about religion, to modern methods of studying religions, and to ways of encouraging students to be both critical and self-critical about their own religious tradition in relation to other

28. “Humanities,” OED, 795. Anyone who is familiar with the current state of “the humanities” in higher education, or who attends academic conferences related to these subject matters, will likely chuckle at the use of the word polite in this context, since much that takes place in these settings is often anything but “polite.” Nevertheless, the definition is still helpful for identifying a few traditional subject areas in this broad field of study. 29. For a helpful introduction to basic arguments in support of the role that the humanities ought to play in university education, see Helen Small, The Value of the Humanities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). See also the argument for the centrality of the humanities in higher education by Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, “Can Christianity Save the Humanities?” The Cresset (Michaelmas 2017): 11–20. They note a deep consonance between Christian faith and studying in the humanities because Christian faith is based on the virtues of honesty, humility, and hope.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

religious traditions. The need for interreligious and ecumenical dialogue is truly great today, since the level of conflict and serious disagreement among and within the world’s religions remains dangerously high. Christian theology cannot avoid the historical influences of ancient religions upon the biblical revelation and how that revelation is conditioned historically. Its revelation is interwoven with terms, beliefs, and practices from the history of ancient religions. Moreover, Christian theology cannot avoid the religious pluralism that defines our global scene. The history of Christianity reveals the manifold ways in which Christians have interacted with other religions in the world, mostly negatively and critically, though not always so. For example, in the medieval period, Roman Catholic theologians engaged in complex exchanges with Islam and Judaism, especially in places such as Spain, where they existed in close proximity. More positive theological exchanges between Christians and people of other faiths are not entirely a recent innovation. Over the past century, many other Christian theologians have worked to understand the history of religions as a way of engaging religions more positively. While ecumenical discussions among Christian churches and groups will remain a necessity as long as those who call upon the name of Christ are divided among themselves (contrary to the straightforward prayer for unity by Christ in John 17), there is an equally great need for comparative theology and further discussions among representatives of the major religions. Christian theology plays a role here by being informed by scholarly descriptions and interpretations of the other religions, by seeking points of consensus and agreement, and by raising critical questions of its own on the basis of its concern for the truth of the gospel. However, the critical methods used in religious studies within universities can also call Christian theology into question, since those methods are guided by scholarly presuppositions that tend to bracket out questions regarding the reality and truth of the object(s) of devotion and study within Christianity. The various approaches within religious studies—history, phenomenology, philosophy of religion, psychology of religion, sociology of religion—are inherently reductive in nature and often quite critical of traditional Christian assumptions and perspectives.30 Christian 30. See, for example, J. Samuel Preus, Explaining Religion: Criticism and Theory from Bodin to Freud (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987). Preus interprets all religions in exclusively naturalistic terms and thus necessarily excludes “theology” from “religious studies.” In his view, “religious studies” is scientific, while theology is most definitely not. Unfortunately, Preus fails to consider, on the one hand, that academic theology is a “critical” discipline, one that is guided by scholarly modes of inquiry that are appropriate to its subject matter, and, on the other hand, that scholars within “religious studies” cannot avoid being motivated by prior personal commitments, apologetic interests, and political and metaphysical convictions. They too occasionally operate with biases and certain metaphysical presuppositions about the nature of reality, the subject matter(s) within every religion, and religious phenomena. His claim that only religious “outsiders” are qualified to explain “religion” truthfully and accurately is thus open to debate.

535

536

Fundamental Theology

theology, nevertheless, has the responsibility to respond to these critical questions and positions that emerge from religious studies regarding Christian teaching and practices. It does so on the basis of its own subject as this becomes clear through its own subdisciplines: to return again and again to the reality and essential truth of that subject (the exploration of religious experience and natural theology within fundamental theology), to articulate Christian teaching ever again for each new situation in light of knowledge from the other religions (doctrinal theology, ethics), to investigate the history of Christianity to check other interpretations of that same history (historical theology), and to explore through practical theology the present dynamics of actual Christian communities, their beliefs, and their actions. In debates about the nature of modernity over the past half century, scholars have stressed that all theories about the religions (or about any academic subject, for that matter) are socially and historically located and necessarily involve commitments to certain values, concepts, assumptions, and methods. In other words, all data that one would study and account for are “theory laden” and more or less interpreted on the basis of one’s presuppositions, values, and commitments. Marxist and feminist scholars of history, the religions, and literature, and also philosophers of science, have been the primary contributors to this ongoing discussion. It is not surprising, then, to discover interpreters of the religions who explicitly study religions on the basis of their own particular religious understandings and commitments. In contrast to the biases and presuppositions of those who study the religions on the basis of naturalism and a modern disbelief in the transcendent, these scholars interpret religions on the basis of a particular theology. One need not agree with Barth’s radical rejection of all religions, including Christianity, as products of human sin, idolatry, and disillusionment. Other Christian theologians, such as Tillich, Tracy, and Küng, have taken a more positive approach to the other religions and have attempted to make correlations between Christian teaching and other religious traditions. These scholars not only make explicit their own Christian presuppositions regarding the claims of Christianity, but they also involve themselves in the difficult task of interreligious dialogue. Similarly, Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916–2000), who spent a lifetime studying the world’s religions, argued that those who study the world’s religions ought to attend carefully to the unique self-understanding of the representatives of the religious traditions and not give in to prejudiced and simplistic understandings of them. A Christian theological approach toward the other religions seeks to take seriously the truth claims of each particular religion and to relate those claims to the faith/truth claims within Christian teaching. While Christian theology cannot avoid making normative judgments in the study of the world’s religions, it also cannot avoid repeatedly testing those normative judgments in light of knowledge that arises from within the study of the religions. It does so according to established rules and customs for scholarly work: concentrated inquisitiveness, openness to all relevant knowledge and data, clear and considered

Christian Theology and the Humanities

judgment, a desire for scholarly objectivity and accuracy, honesty, humility, the avoidance of proselytizing, and accountability to the community of scholars in one’s university and beyond. While some might want to relegate Jewish studies or Islamic studies or Buddhist studies or Christian studies to private schools or institutions affiliated with those traditions, or study religious ideas merely in the context of the history of world religions or in religious studies, there seem to be no legitimate grounds for excluding from a university the scholarly study of specific religions, their teachings and practices, as long as such inquiry is consistent with the scholarly canons of the university and the intellectual virtues that are fostered there. This form of study also gives rise to theological understanding and criticism. Such scholarly investigation, even within state colleges and universities, should not be understood as providing legitimacy or state sponsorship to a specific religious tradition, its practices, and beliefs, but as giving mature students the opportunity to gain cultural insight and self-understanding within a situation of religious pluralism. In that context the student honors the specificity of the religious tradition, examines its claims to reality critically, uncovers its impact on people and their societies, and explores the potential illumination it provides for the interpretation of reality and the deepening of self-understanding. Despite the dangers, critical reflection on religious convictions, practices, and values, which could be another way of describing theology, is too important to leave out of a university curriculum. Since the encounter with religious questions and wisdom is an integral dimension of what it means to be an educated human being, academic theology assists in that engagement by inviting students to think critically about their own faith and its tradition(s), to sift their tradition in light of other knowledge uncovered and transmitted within the university, and to hunt for helpful, considered understanding and wisdom from that tradition.31 Students are not only encouraged to pursue their own quests for transcendent or ultimate reality, whether theistic or not; they are also asked to consider carefully which skills and attitudes are most helpful for engaging in theological dialogue with people of differing faiths and with those of no apparent faith. Given that a professionally oriented university degree is no guarantee today that one will easily find employment after graduation, students ought to use the university to sharpen and define their own self-understanding. Such “sharpening” will include deeper reflection on one’s own religious (or nonreligious) commitments, the cultivation of virtues relating to character and intellect, and the improvement of those skills and attitudes necessary for truly understanding the religious practices and ideas of others.

31. Edward Farley, “The Place of Theology in the Study of Religion,” Religious Studies and Theology 5 (Sept. 1985): 16.

537

538

Fundamental Theology

While the task of comparative theology (i.e., comparing theological unders­ tandings within the various world religions) is daunting and, some will argue, really impossible to fulfill, since no one has a complete understanding of multiple religious traditions or, perhaps, of even one tradition, the need for interreligious understanding is great today, given how religious differences so often lead to conflict and violence, and thus the task is worth pursuing. One must start somewhere. Hopefully academic exercises in comparative theology, undertaken according to the strict standards of universal scholarship, can help to ward off theological prejudice and serious misunderstandings.32

Christian theology and philosophy We have already given a brief overview of how Christian theologians responded to the origin of theology within ancient Greek philosophy (see Chapter 2). We noted there that Christian thinkers have disagreed among themselves about the importance of non-Christian philosophy for Christian thinking. Some have followed Niebuhr’s first type and have radically rejected any and all forms of non-Christian knowledge as unimportant. Tertullian is the classic example of this approach. Others have allowed non-Christian philosophy to more or less shape their understanding and presentation of Christian teaching. For example, the second-century Christian Apologists saw no real distinction between philosophy, “the love of wisdom,” and theology, “thinking about God.” The history of Christian theology can be instructive to any person who wants to understand the history of Western philosophy and vice versa, since the history of Western civilization demonstrates a partnership between the two. Already in the apostolic witness there are indications that Paul was influenced by Stoic philosophy and that John was working with terms and concepts from Platonic philosophy. The theologies of Augustine and the Cappadocians are incomprehensible apart from a knowledge of Neo-Platonic philosophy, just as the theology of Aquinas is significantly shaped by Aristotelian philosophy. Much of nineteenth- and early-twentiethcentury Protestant theology is incomprehensible apart from an understanding of critical philosophy (Kant), German Romanticism (Schleiermacher), and German Idealism (Hegel), just as European Existentialism influenced mid-twentieth-century Protestant and Catholic articulations of theology. In every one of these situations philosophy was taken into service for the shaping of theological truth. It is this use of 32. For an excellent example of this kind of comparative approach for the sake of renewal and a positive action, see Michael Kinnamon, The Witness of Religion in an Age of Fear (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2017). Kinnamon, a very influential Christian ecumenist and leader, makes a solid case that the great religions of the world, at their best, warn about the dangers of excessive fear and provide helpful resources for overcoming personal and collective fears.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

philosophy by theologians that illuminates the medieval judgment that philosophy is “the handmaiden of theology.” This same history of Western philosophy and Christian theology provides numerous examples of how theologians wanted to make Christian ideas intelligible on the basis of the reigning philosophical system of their day, only to have their own theology become dated as soon as that system was found wanting, for one reason or another. Not surprisingly, since the days of late-medieval Scholasticism and the Protestant Reformation, the disciplines of Christian theology and philosophy have become more and more distinct and independent of each other, often accompanied by a mutual distrust and criticism of the other, despite some notable efforts (Hegel, Rahner, Pannenberg) to overcome their antitheses. Within the most recent period of intellectual history one notes a heightened awareness among scholars of the incompleteness of all worldviews and the need for vigilant criticism of all attempts at intellectual comprehensiveness. Despite this historic distrust and conflict between Christian theology and modern secular philosophy, neither discipline can fully avoid the other. Responsible and generous scholars within each of them will encourage renewed attempts at positive interaction and partnership. This encouragement is especially necessary today when some theologians are dismissive of the use of critical philosophy within theology, and when some philosophers are altogether dismissive of theological questions and issues. While theology and philosophy address some of the same questions (the reality of God, philosophical theology, the nature of human beings, the problem of meaning, the nature of evil, the limits of human reasoning), they do so on very different bases or sources and by means of different methods, and these differences have led to greater and greater separation between scholars in each discipline, as has the fact that scholars define each discipline differently vis-a-vis the other. Questions about the proper subject matter of philosophy and the proper subject matter of theology, and the degree to which they overlap, remain open questions that invite ongoing discussion. At the very least, both students of theology and students of philosophy ought to be encouraged to return repeatedly to classic sources within their respective disciplines, to examine how past thinkers have engaged the questions that are common to both disciplines (e.g., the questions about the reality of God and the problem of evil), and to learn by instructive example when the subject matter of each discipline was distorted by inappropriate intrusion of the one upon the other. The academic disciplines of theology and philosophy thus serve together to keep alive the big, foundational questions that humans raise about themselves and their world, which have animated the great thinkers in both Western and non-Western civilizations: What is the right way to live? How should society be structured? What is the relationship between human beings and the nonhuman world? What is ultimately real? These questions and the types of thinking required to address them can awaken in students a deeper awareness of the complexities of our world. But addressing these questions can also help to sharpen minds and make people wiser.

539

540

Fundamental Theology

Christian theology ought to involve clear thinking, careful argument, and attention to the meaning(s) of terms and their usage within the discipline. Both theology and philosophy benefit from insightful analysis of initial judgments and hidden assumptions, just as they are deepened by critical reflection on the supposed logical character of their complex arguments. According to an important twentiethcentury Lutheran theologian: “As long as philosophy remains in contact with its own origin—in any case without this it would give up its character as philosophy— theology retains its partner. To be in conversation with philosophy in one way or another must serve to further the truth.”33 How Christian theology seeks to further the truth may bring it into conflict with philosophy or at least some forms of philosophy. Such an opposition may arise because Christian theology, despite its common ground with historic Western philosophy, cannot avoid insisting upon a theological interpretation of reality in the light of the reality of God. Christian theology remains grounded within a particular, historical tradition that interprets all of reality through this manifold revelation of God and the ultimate witness to the truth of the gospel. Here, too, in its relation to philosophy, Christian theology cannot avoid making normative judgments in the light of that particular truth.

Christian theology and the other humanities Christian theology explores a living legacy. That broad tradition includes more than mere writing, speaking, and thinking. Visual art, music, architecture, and the performing arts (e.g., dance) are also integral elements of the Christian heritage, even if the history of Christianity reveals important Christian individuals and movements that have been critical and dismissive of them. Without question the Christian tradition has been “the single most important factor” in the development of art, architecture, and music in the Western world over the past 2,000 years.34 A few hours in any major art museum, a summer’s journey to the most important European cathedrals, and a season’s worth of classical music will be sufficient to demonstrate this claim about the close relationship between the arts and Christianity. Some knowledge of the latter is therefore necessary for one to appreciate more fully the former’s rich heritage. At the very least, Christian theology can help to make people more literate about the explicitly Christian aspects within much of Western art, literature, and music and of how people through the centuries have used these art forms to symbolize matters of Christian faith. Engagement with Christian theology will also help to disclose how Christianity has shaped the 33. Ebeling, The Study of Theology, 66. 34. Charles Pickstone, “Arts,” Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. John Bowden (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 65.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

development of art, architecture, music, and literature. Often details within Western art and literature are incomprehensible without retrieving forgotten stories and ideas within the Christian tradition. Entire books have been written, for example, to help people interpret the great cathedrals of the world, such as the one at Chartres with its intricate sculptures and carvings and heavenly stained-glass windows.35 Even today, people are still entranced by Gregorian chants or spiritually uplifted through German Lutheran chorales. In view of the challenges of appropriating insights from the past, Christian theology may help to uncover unknown or forgotten theological dimensions within the arts, literature, and music and to offer informed interpretations of them. At the very least, theology may help the student of cultural history to understand better the artifacts of Christian faith that are scattered among the art, literary, and architectural treasures of the past. Perhaps, too, theology can help to highlight how these objects continue to communicate the presence of God to people today.36 But Christian theology may also provide a perspective on the arts and music that underscores the mystery of human creativity in relation to the mystery of the divine. Take the encomium to music by Luther, who was himself a musician and a composer: I would certainly like to praise music with all my heart as the excellent gift of God, which it is, and to commend it to everyone. But I am so overwhelmed by the diversity and magnitude of its virtues and benefits, that I can find neither beginning nor end nor method for my discourse. As much as I want to commend it, my praise is bound to be wanting and inadequate. For who can comprehend it all? And even if you wanted to encompass all of it, you would appear to have grasped nothing at all. First then, looking at music itself, you will find that from the beginning of the world it has been instilled and implanted in all creatures, individually and collectively. For nothing is without sound or harmony … Music is still more wonderful in living things, especially birds, so that David, most musical of all kings and minstrel of God in deepest wonder and spiritual exultation, praised the astounding art and ease of the song of birds … Philosophers for all their labor cannot find the explanation; and baffled, they end in perplexity, for none of them has yet been able to define or demonstrate the original components of the human voice, its sibilation and, as it were, its alphabet in the case of laughter to say nothing of weeping. They marvel, but they do not understand. Music deserves the highest praise. She is a mistress and governess of those human emotions—to pass over the animals—which as masters govern people or, more often, overwhelm them. No greater commendation than this can be found, at least not by us. For, whether you wish to comfort the sad, to terrify the happy, to encourage the despairing, to humble the proud, to calm the passionate, 35. Malcolm Miller, Chartres Cathedral, 2nd edn (New York: Riverside, 2004). 36. As an example of a theological approach to great literature, see Peter C. Brown, Listening for God: Malamud, O’Connor, Updike, and Morrison (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2020); and Robert Detweiler, Breaking the Fall: Religious Readings of Contemporary Fiction (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995).

541

542

Fundamental Theology

or to appease those full of hate—what more effective means than music could you find? The Holy Spirit himself honors her as an instrument for his proper work when in his holy scriptures he asserts that through her music, his gifts were instilled in the prophets. Thus, it was not without reason that the fathers and prophets wanted nothing else to be associated as closely with the word of God as music. Therefore, we have so many hymns and psalms where message and music join to move the listener. While in living beings, or when played on instruments, music remains a language without words. Finally, when education is added to all this—as well as artistic music, which corrects, develops, and refines the natural music—then, at last, it is possible to taste and wonder at God’s absolute and perfect wisdom. Here it is most remarkable that one single voice continues to sing the tenor, while at the same time many other voices trip lustily around it, exulting and adorning it in exuberant strains and, as it were, leading it forth in a divine dance, so that those who are the least bit moved know nothing more amazing in the world. But any who remain unaffected are clodhoppers indeed, and are fit to hear only the words of horseshit poets and the music of pigs. Amen.37

Of course, Luther knew nothing of his spiritual descendant, Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750), or of any of the other great composers of the past 250 years! Nor is he the only Christian theologian to have reflected on the theological dimensions of music. For example, Barth offered an insightful theological analysis of Mozart’s music, while Jaroslav Pelikan did so for the music of Bach.38 In a more general way, Schlink has explored the theological basis of music and its use in Christian worship.39

37. Luther, “Preface to Georg Rhau’s Symphoniae Iucundae” (1538), LW1, 53.321–4 (trans. modified). The copyrighted material cited here is used by permission of Augsburg/Fortress Press. 38. See Barth, CD, 3/3.472 (one among many references in his dogmatics that could be cited); Karl Barth, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, trans. Clarence K. Pott (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); and Jaroslav Pelikan, Bach among the Theologians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). For additional reflections on the theological dimension of Bach’s music, see Christoph Wolff, Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician (New York: Norton, 2000); John Eliot Gardiner, Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven (New York: Vintage, 2013), whose final paragraph praises how Bach “gives us the voice of God—in human form” (558); and Martin Geck, Johann Sebastian Bach: Life and Work, trans. John Hargraves (New York: Harcourt, 2000). For an excellent theological riff on jazz music, see William Edgar, A Supreme Love: The Music of Jazz and the Hope of the Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022). With respect to more recent popular music, there is the insightful commentary by Jeffrey Symynkywicz in his book, The Gospel according to Bruce Springsteen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008). Eric Alterman also hits some properly theological notes in his analytical work, It Ain’t No Sin to Be Glad You’re Alive: The Promise of Bruce Springsteen (Boston: Back Bay Books, 2001). 39. Edmund Schlink, “Zum theologischen Problem der Musik” [On the theological issue of music], in Schriften zu Ökumene und Bekenntnis, 5 vols, ed. Klaus Engelhardt, Günther Gassmann, Rolf Herrfahrdt, Michael Plathow, Ursula Schnell, and Peter Zimmerling (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004–10), 5.147–69. My translation of this important essay will be included in the fifth volume of ESW.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

Other scholars have offered similar analyses.40 Can anyone truly appreciate the transcendent music of the great contemporary composer Arvo Pärt (b. 1935) without acknowledging its grounding in Eastern Orthodox theological traditions? How have Christian faith and artistic creation come together in the history of Christianity? Even the non-Christian may wonder about what early Christians were doing when they had images painted on catacomb walls, or what Michelangelo (1475–1564) was trying to depict on the ceiling and walls of the Sistine Chapel, or what Eastern Christians were trying to reveal through their church mosaics, icons, and Byzantine chanting. What is conveyed through Matthias Grünewald’s (1470– 1528) Isenheim Altarpiece (connecting the dying Christ with those who suffer illness), or Caravaggio’s (1571–1610) The Calling of St. Matthew (tying together the Christian notions of “new creation,” vocation, and discipleship), or Rembrandt’s (1606–1669) The Return of the Prodigal Son (one of the best paintings ever of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation)? Or what are the theological implications of the placement of Christ in The Flagellation of Christ by Piero della Francesca (d. 1492), a work of art that the poet Seamus Heaney (1939–2013) has described as having “the aura of the uncanny; a sense of Christian iconography, but defamiliarised.”41 Then, too, there is the work of contemporary iconographer Kelly Latimore (b. 1986), such as his icon Refugees: La Sagrada Familia (which depicts the escape of the Holy Family as a current-day crossing of the southern US border by immigrants seeking safety). “In the beginning was the Word” (Jn. 1.1). That theological assertion has relevance for any theological engagement with beautiful words. What are the theological implications within Dante’s Divine Comedy, Milton’s Paradise Lost, or Dostoevsky’s great novels?42 What theological understanding emerges from readings of poetry by Donne, Herbert, Hopkins and other great artists? Many scholars have devoted themselves to theological issues and themes in “religion and literature,” to explore tensions and agreement between a Christian theological understanding and understandings that emerge from the great literature of the world (from Greek tragedy to contemporary novels). For example, how do the characters and worlds in Shakespeare intersect with the world(s) and characters envisioned in Christian Scripture? That same “intersection” may be explored in so many other literary creations (e.g., Tolkien’s Middle-earth, Lewis’s Narnia Tales, the world of Harry Potter, and the list goes on). Is not one’s self-understanding deepened by the correlation 40. See esp. Jeremy S. Begbie, A Peculiar Orthodoxy: Reflections on Theology and the Arts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018); Paul Westermeyer, Te Deum: The Church and Music (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); Mark Mattes, Martin Luther’s Theology of Beauty: A Reappraisal (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 113–32. 41. Seamus Heaney, “Seven Wonders,” Interview by Maggie Fergusson, Intelligent Life Magazine (January/ February 2013): 24. 42. See, for example, Rowan Williams, Dostoevsky: Language, Faith, and Fiction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011).

543

544

Fundamental Theology

between these “classics” and the vision given in Scripture? Why do such classics persist across time and space? Could it be that they help us to understand ourselves and our world better? Might they even “read” us better than we can ourselves on our own?43 People are not the same as they were before they read a collection of essays such as those by the poet Christian Wiman (b. 1966).44 Readers get “read” here, too, as they are imaginatively brought into the poet’s struggles with doubt and his Christian faith, with illness and joy, love and fear, sorrow and hope. Great themes in world literature lead the theologically attuned toward engagement with those themes, even as the literature itself cannot help but impact one’s theological understanding. We also can draw attention to the important connections between Christian themes and both music and the visual arts. Who cannot be deeply moved by the intimate connection between word and music in the Passions of J. S. Bach, or in his B-Minor Mass, as well as in Franz Joseph Hayden’s (1732–1809) Creation, or in Ludwig van Beethoven’s (1770–1827) Requiem Mass, or in the one by Luigi Cherubini (1760–1842), which Beethoven thought superior to Mozart’s? More recently one can point to the haunting, theologically freighted lyrics of such contemporary artists as Julien Baker (b. 1995): “But I think there’s a God and He hears either way. And I rejoice and complain.”45 These experiences of music reveal a meaningful theological vision.46 Many of the scenes from the Gospels (the annunciation to Mary, the visit of Mary with Elizabeth, the birth of Jesus, the deaths of the holy innocents, Jesus’ baptism, his sermon on the mount, his miracles, his entry into Jerusalem, the Last Supper, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) and the Acts of the Apostles (the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the revelation of the risen Jesus to Paul) are variously and beautifully depicted down the centuries and often disturbingly rendered in visual art (as in Piss-Christ by Andres Serrano [b. 1950]). The rich, complex theological themes in these and other great works of Western and non-Western art call for theological interpretation of their subject matter and the cultural assumptions that have shaped them, as well as aesthetic appreciation of their truth and beauty.47 43. “I define a ‘classic,’ in literature, in music, in the arts, in philosophic argument, as a signifying form which ‘reads’ us. It reads us more than we read (listen to, perceive) it… Each time we engage with it, the classic will question us” (George Steiner, Errata: An Examined Life [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997], 19). 44. Christian Wiman, My Bright Abyss: Meditations of a Modern Believer (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2013); and Christian Wiman, He Held Radical Light: The Art of Faith, the Faith of Art (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2018). Wiman was the editor of Poetry magazine between 2003 and 2013. 45. Julien Baker, “Rejoice,” Sprained Ankle, Matador B01N0ZA80Z (2017), compact disk. 46. For extended discussions of this point, see especially Jeremy S. Begbie, Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts (New York: T&T Clark, 1991). 47. See esp. David Lyle Jeffrey, In the Beauty of Holiness: Art and the Bible in Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). Influenced by the aesthetics of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1882–1973), Jeffrey idealizes beauty into a standard that he then uses to criticize art he does not like. His

Christian Theology and the Humanities

While we could focus more on the relation of Christian theology to music, literature, and architecture, we shall limit ourselves to a few further comments about the visual arts. The history of Christianity shows that Christian thinkers have been divided among themselves over the visual arts. Some have highlighted the importance of the visual arts to convey theological truth, only to be countered by others who decry all such visual creations as idols that are contrary to the OT prohibition on “graven images” (Exod. 20.4). Certainly some early Christians, influenced by this Jewish prohibition, have been “anti-image,” yet others borrowed classical forms, such as the figure of Apollo, to depict Jesus as the Good Shepherd or as a wise teacher or as a worker of miracles. Later, a serious conflict arose in early Eastern Christianity over the use of visual icons to depict Christ and individual saints and martyrs. During the eighth and ninth centuries, it seemed the whole of the Eastern Roman Empire was embroiled in controversy regarding the proper use of symbols and images within the church. This controversy, which occurred in a context that included Jewish and Muslim criticism of all images, led to serious reflection on the relation of theological understanding to the use of icons within the church. It was an argument about Christian tradition, which was ambiguous regarding images. While both sides in this “Iconoclastic Controversy” accepted the belief that the Word (the Logos) of God had entered into the material world and had become incarnate in Jesus, and that in the Eucharist the bread becomes an image of the body of Christ, and that therefore the invisible God had made God known in and through material, visual things, one side insisted that only Christ could be depicted in images while the other side affirmed that Mary, other saints, and the martyrs could be depicted as well. On the one side were the iconoclasts, those who held all icons to be idols and thus contrary to authentic Christian worship. On the other side were the iconophiles, those who defended the veneration of icons in the divine service and their reverence in the devotional life of Christians. This latter position eventually won out as the official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church, largely due to its deep-seated practice within the Eastern tradition, but also because of the theological reflections of theologians like John of Damascus, who clarified the nature of icons as a means by which the faithful could be drawn to contemplate the archetype which the icon depicts or symbolizes. The icon is neither an idol nor is it identical to that which it represents, but it follows from the scriptural teaching that the eternal Son of God is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1.15) and that Adam was “made in the image of God” (Gen. 1.27). In the Eastern tradition, therefore, icons are meant insistance that the Protestant Reformation had a negative influence on art is only partially correct (minimizing the work of artists within the Lutheran reformation movement, e.g., Lucas Cranach Sr. [1472–1553], and overlooking later artists influenced by Luther’s theology of the cross, e.g., the German Expressionists, who retained the spiritual power of art in unconventional ways.) But Jeffrey is right to point to the abiding spiritual power in the work of twentieth-century artists Georges Rouault (1871–1958) and Marc Chagall (1887–1985). For an examination of Christian art in a non-Western setting, see Cécile Fromont, The Art of Conversion: Christian Visual Culture in the Kingdom of Kongo (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014).

545

546

Fundamental Theology

to portray the reality of the history of Christ and his church, which is similar to the use of stained-glass windows in Western Christian traditions (save for some forms of Protestantism, such as mainstream Calvinism, that have historically rejected all use of images). This conflict over icons had run its course within the Eastern churches by the end of the ninth century, though arguments about symbols and images continued to be made in response to further Jewish and Muslim iconoclastic opposition. Throughout the history of the Western Church there have appeared various iconoclastic movements and positions as well. Despite their common commitment to the priority of the proclamation of the word for the sake of creating faith in Christ alone, Calvin and his spiritual ancestors attacked the use of images within the church, while Luther and Lutherans have generally, if not universally, allowed stained-glass windows, wood cuts, sculptures, and other visual arts to convey biblical truths within their sacred spaces and within their published versions of the Bible. One reason for this Protestant divide about the arts might be the fact that Calvin made the Mosaic prohibition on “graven images” a separate commandment (in the list of the “Ten Commandments”), while Luther interpreted it as merely an example of how one could break the First Commandment—and therefore numbered the Commandments differently. But another reason is one that H. Richard Niebuhr did not mention in the description of his fourth type of the relation between “Christ” and “culture”: For Luther, visual, creaturely art is not inherently demonic or idolatrous; it could be used for good purposes within the church, to depict law and gospel or some other truth about God and human beings, as in the biblical woodcuts and paintings by Lucas Cranach Sr. (1472–1553), Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528), and subsequent artists who were influenced by Luther. Within twentieth-century Christian theology we also find similar disagreements about symbols and images that hearken back to the debates within the iconoclastic controversy. Although Barth had a copy of the crucifixion scene from the Isenheim Altarpiece hanging above his desk, he opposed the presence of images within Protestant churches and was generally negative toward a theological use of the visual arts. He was convinced that the splendor of visual art and material objects would likely lead people astray into idolatry. Other Christians, mindful of medieval and Thomistic discussions about art and beauty, have built on an incarnational and sacramental theology that sees objects of beauty as the means by which God conveys and manifests the divine presence and glory. One particularly fruitful example of such an approach is the seven-volume study of theological aesthetics by the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–88), who was inspired by Barth’s discussion of “glory” in his Church Dogmatics and by Aquinas’s understanding of the analogy of being, in which all created being participates in eternal being (a notion that Barth fully rejected).48 Similar to the position of Aquinas, other theologians 48. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, 7 vols, trans. Brian McNeil, Andrew Louth, and Erasmo Leiva Merikakis (New York: Crossroad, 1982–9).

Christian Theology and the Humanities

stress that the arts are capable of drawing individuals beyond themselves to the contemplation of the transcendent God. According to this understanding of the arts, the “art object and practice of art are not thought of as theological in any direct sense. What is important is the divine joy and beauty these might evoke.”49 Such a view fits well with Niebuhr’s third type of the Christ-culture relationship, since proponents of this position see art as drawing the individual to a vision of God or heaven, the so-called beatific vision, beyond the transitory material world. Art gives expression to human desires for the divine. For contemporary Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart (b. 1965), beauty is intimately connected to every moment of “the Christian story” and is identical with its truth.50 By contrast, Tillich and those influenced by him, such as Langdon Gilkey (1919– 2004) and John Dillenberger (1918–2008), have stressed the importance of the arts, especially the visual arts, for disclosing or illuminating the depths of theological meaning, including the realities of sin and evil and human brokenness, as well as divine grace and love. Following Schleiermacher’s positive appraisal of artistic beauty and aesthetic experience, which he thought was akin to faith in God the Creator, they have insisted that the Christian theologian needs to be open to engaging secular, creaturely works of art, architecture, and music, since these too may become the means by which God or human beings are revealed within human experience.51 The goal of this revelation may be the transformation of self and the world. Important truths about human beings, their world, and God may be revealed through one’s experience of a painting, or a photograph, or a film, or some other revelatory, meaningful piece of art. In this way theology approaches human creativity and the human imagination as providing the conditions for divine revelation of God, human beings, and their world.52 Creative “symbols” “open up dimensions of reality which cannot be grasped any other way.”53 What can art teach us about God and also about ourselves and our world? For example, Luther’s theology of the cross is unveiled

49. William A. Dyrness, “The Arts,” OHST, 595. Dyrness’s entry on the arts provides an excellent overview of several representative Christian understandings of the visual arts, from Kant and Schleiermacher through Barth and Tillich and up to contemporary theorists such as Jeremy Begbie and David Bentley Hart. 50. Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, 4. 51. The word may is emphasized in this sentence since some art, especially in the past 100 years, seems to be non-revelatory, in that it is self-referential or self-glorifying, promotional, or implicitly antihumanistic and nihilistic. But maybe even nihilistic art can become revelatory of God’s alien operation, that is, of disclosing human sin, evil, emptiness, meaninglessness, and so on. 52. Cecilia González-Andrieu, who builds on the reflections about “revelation” by Dulles (see Chapter 7), stresses the transformative character of art in her insightful book, Bridge to Wonder: Art as a Gospel of Beauty (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012). 53. Paul Tillich, “Visual Arts and the Revelatory Character of Style,” in Paul Tillich, On Art and Architecture, ed. John Dillenberger (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 133.

547

548

Fundamental Theology

in many works of art by the twentieth-century German Expressionists (1909–68), especially the artists Emil Nolde (1867–1956) and Otto Dix (1891–1969). Both of these artists used the theology of the cross to criticize their society: its “bourgeois decadence, economic inequality, humanity deformed by the ravages of war, and the blind pride of militant nationalism.”54 Although many conservative Christians are convinced that artistic culture is inherently evil and must be condemned and avoided altogether, other Christians will take a more nuanced, critical position about the nature of the arts, however corrupted they might be by the powers of sin and evil. They will view the arts as potentially providing insight into the revelation of God as creator and of human beings as creatures and sinners before God—or as drawing people to the contemplation of “the beauty of the infinite.” There is the need for discernment about what is good and evil, about what is profound and what is trivial, about what is true and false, and about what is beautiful and what is not. Christian theology may help to respond creatively to questions of aesthetics and to issues of truth, goodness, and beauty.55 Near the end of his letter to the Christians in ancient Philippi, the apostle Paul provides a scriptural basis for thinking about such matters: “Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil. 4.8). Perhaps more than any other verse in the NT, this one has reminded Christians that they, too, should be concerned to uphold what is “good, true, and beautiful.” These ideals are not contrary to Christian faith. Indeed they “formed the triad of transcendental ideals that the Christian tradition inherited from the classical age and appropriated for its own uses.”56 They are still worth appropriating today, however difficult that process may be. The task of Christian theology in relation to the other humanities is to discern the theological subject matter within them and to allow it to become prominent. The

54. Joel Nickel, “Get Real! Grounds for a Lutheran Aesthetic,” unpublished paper. “Luther would argue that God comes to find us, and the form he takes is always counter-intuitive and thus unexpected. Beauty cannot be established on metaphysical grounds independent of the real, in time, biblical promises of Christ’s grace because then describing, claiming, or personally creating beauty would be problematic for Christians. If Christ’s beauty is ‘hidden in the opposite,’ as the One who paradoxically ‘had no form or comeliness that we should admire him, no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him’ (Isa. 53.2), then his followers can locate him among themselves in the real. So, get real in Christ, where beauty is discovered through grace!” (Nickel, “Get Real!”). 55. How, for example, is the Christian to respond responsibly to the art of Richard Wagner (1813–83), a deeply anti-Semitic person, whose musical compositions are moving and spectacularly beautiful, but also fiercely anti-Christian? 56. Daniel J. Treier, Mark Husbands, and Roger Lundin, “Introduction,” The Beauty of God: Theology and the Arts, ed. Daniel J. Treier, Mark Husbands, and Roger Lundin (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 7.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

goal here is not merely to understand Christian art, literature, music, and architecture from the past as artifacts in the history of Christianity, as important as those artifacts might be in their own right, but to analyze them theologically and critically and to draw from them those insights that can be brought forward into contemporary theology. Nor is the goal to be merely critical of so-called secular art, literature, film, and music, whether contemporary or not, as if it has nothing to do with matters about which Christian theology also speaks. It is difficult, for example, to miss the Christian symbolism and theological meanings within a film like Flight (2012), which is at least partly about the bondage of sin and the power of divine grace to transform an individual, or to avoid engaging the metaphysical problems (the problem of evil, the reality of God) in so many other great films of the past century.57 How do the arts and humanities deepen, complicate, and revitalize one’s understanding of Christian theology? How does Christian theology help to interpret religious and theological symbols that are conveyed through the arts and the humanities? How do art and theology mutually inform the other’s manifestation of the sublime and the beautiful? What is the connection between the beauty of art and the truth of the gospel? Between the metaphors that are used of the triune God, Christ, the Spirit, the church, creation and the metaphorical beauty that is found in creation and in imaginative works of art? What, for example, is the connection between the truth of the message about the cross of Christ, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1.20-31), and the power of art to disclose truth and beauty? Within theological anthropology, the question that is raised in Ps. 8.4 is especially significant since great art, music, and literature continually raise this question and similar ones and provide creative visions about human beings and their world, about God, evil, suffering, and salvation. To what extent are those visions similar or complementary to the biblical revelation of God, the world, and human beings? To what extent do they differ? These are among the basic questions that arise in a theological investigation of the humanities.

Questions for review and discussion

1. How do one’s understandings of God shape one’s perceptions about intellectual matters? Do you think one’s Christian faith should cause one to view an academic discipline differently from someone of another religion (or no religion)? What difference, if any, does Christian faith make to the study of mathematics, physics, or biology? 57. See, for example, Richard Vance Goodwin, Seeing Is Believing: The Revelation of God through Film

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022).

549

550

Fundamental Theology

















2. Review H. Richard Niebuhr’s five types of relating Christian faith and culture. Which type best describes your understanding? Which type did Niebuhr himself favor? Why does the author think types three and four are better suited to an undergraduate university setting? Do you agree or disagree with the author on this point? Why? 3. The relationship between religious studies and Christian theology has surfaced at several points in this book. How do you think theology and religious studies are similar? How might they be different? 4. How have Christian theologians disagreed about the role of philosophy in theology? 5. What are two examples of a question that both philosophers and theologians address? How does a philosopher deal with those questions? How does a Christian theologian? 6. Are you more inclined to take a negative position with regard to the role of philosophy in theology (as Tertullian, Luther, and Barth have taken) or a more positive position that emphasizes the importance of philosophy for theology (as Aquinas, Hegel, and Pannenberg have taken)? 7. The chapter offers some representative examples of how the Christian faith has impacted art, architecture, and music in the history of Western civilization. Can you think of some additional examples that were not mentioned? 8. Christian theologians have disagreed among themselves about the visual arts, most notably in the so-called Iconoclastic Controversy. Do you side with those theologians who have been critical of visual representation (as did the iconoclasts) or with those who have encouraged the creative arts and view them as potentially revelatory (as did Luther, Tillich, and several more recent Christian thinkers)? Be familiar with the theological arguments that have been given for and against visual art within the Christian tradition. 9. What is your favorite film? Can you identify any religious or theological dimensions in that film? How might a Christian theologian understand that film theologically? 10. Can you think of some other ways, beyond the ones mentioned in the chapter, in which the arts and humanities deepen, complicate, and revitalize one’s understanding of Christian theology?

Suggestions for further reading Brief articles on the relationship of Christian theology to the humanities Bernd Auerochs, “Literature and the Christian Tradition,” RPP, 7.527–35. Virgil Cândea, “Iconoclasm,” ER, 7.1–2.

Christian Theology and the Humanities

Susanna Bede Caroselli, “Christian Art,” EC, 1.422–31. John W. Cook, “Iconography: Christian Iconography,” ER, 7.57–64. William A. Dyrness, “The Arts,” OHST, 561–79. Hans-Helmuth Gander, “Humanities,” RPP, 6.326–7. Volkhard Krech, Thomas Lentes, Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, Joseph Imorde, David Ganz, Yvonne Dohna, Reinhard Hoeps, Claudia Gärtner, Hans Georg Thümmel, Volker Küster, Marianne Barrucand, Wolfgang Schoberth, Albrecht Grözinger, Masao Takenaka, and Klaus Raschzok, “Art and Religion,” RPP, 1.398–418. Charles Pickstone, “Arts,” Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. Bowden, 65–77.

The interdisciplinary character of Christian theology David F. Ford, Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). [Ford offers a way of relating a distinctively Christian form of wisdom in dialogue with other religions and other academic disciplines.] Mike Highton, A Theology of Higher Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). [An engaging critique of higher education by a British Christian theologian. Highton argues for the importance of theology within every good university. Not only can theology serve an important role in helping to form intellectual virtues, but it can also help to contribute to the vibrancy of a university as a center of academic inquiry and it can help to serve the public good.] Roger Lundin, ed., Christ Across the Disciplines: Past, Present, Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). [A set of lectures to commemorate the sesquicentennial of Wheaton College. These essays, written by scholars from mostly Reformed, Evangelical, and Catholic backgrounds, provide historical, theological, and philosophical inquiry into the nature and purpose of Christian higher education.] George Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). [Suggests that Christians will in fact approach academic disciplines differently from non-Christians.] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951). [Niebuhr’s classic examination of five different ways of relating Christian faith to secular culture and civilization.] Ted Peters, Graham Howes, Jeremy Begbie, and Richard H. Roberts, “Theology and the Arts and Sciences,” in The Modern Theologians, ed. David F. Ford (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 645–719. [These essays summarize basic positions regarding the relationship of Christian theology to the natural sciences, the visual arts, music, and the social sciences.]

Christian theology and religious studies See the further readings at the end of the introductory chapter.

551

552

Fundamental Theology

Christian theology and philosophy See the further readings at the end of Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Christian theology and the humanities Jeremy Begbie, ed., Beholding the Glory: The Incarnation through the Arts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). [Marvelous and rich exploration of the artistic imagination in relation to the central Christian theological affirmation that the Word of God became incarnate in Jesus.] Jeremy S. Begbie, Redeeming Transcendence in the Arts: Bearing Witness to the Triune God (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 2018). [A good introduction to Christian theological aesthetics. Begbie explains why art can awaken a profound sense of the divine, of wonder, of mystery. He employs a Christian trinitarian perspective to show how Christian engagement with the arts can be shaped by the distinctive vision of God’s transcendence that is unveiled in and through Jesus Christ.] Jeremy S. Begbie, Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts (New York: T&T Clark, 1991). [Ground-breaking work on the arts, especially music, from a Christian theological perspective that takes its starting point in orthodox christology.] Bruce Birch Brown, Religious Aesthetics: A Theological Study of Making and Meaning (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). [Demonstrates how the aesthetic dimensions of religious experience can shed light on theological meaning.] Peter C. Brown, Listening for God: Malamud, O’Connor, Updike, and Morrison (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2021). [Reading this book will open you to the voice of God through the work of four of America’s most important religious existentialist writers of fiction.] W. Dale Brown, Of Fiction and Faith: Twelve American Writers Talk about Their Vision and Work (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). [Informative interviews with key Christian authors who talk candidly about their faith and their writing.] Paula J. Carlson and Peter S. Hawkins, eds., Listening for God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994). [A wonderful collection of stories and essays by eight American authors who explore the theme of the book’s title. The contributors include Flannery O’Connor, Annie Dillard, Alice Walker, and Richard Rodriguez.] Robert Detweiler, Breaking the Fall: Religious Readings of Contemporary Fiction (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995). [Important essays by the premier American exponent of theologically oriented literary criticism. This book won the American Academy of Religion Award for Excellence in Religious Studies.] Robert Detweiler, Uncivil Rites: American Fiction, Religion and the Public Sphere (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1996). [Another excellent work by a leading scholar in the theology of literature.] Jane Dillenberger, Style & Content in Christian Art (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1986). [A now classic introduction to the scope of Christian art. Though dated in places, it is still a great place to begin one’s study of this subject.]

Christian Theology and the Humanities

Paul Corby Finney, ed., The Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Early Christian Art and Archaeology, 2 vols (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). [An excellent reference work on this subject matter.] Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981). [A strictly aesthetic approach to the importance of the Christian Bible in Western culture and to its power to create a visionary poetic perspective that enriches scientific perspectives. A downside to Frye’s approach is his denial of the referential dimension of language, i.e., that it does not refer to anything true or real outside of itself.] Giles B. Gunn, Interpretation of Otherness: Literature, Religion and the American Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979). [Penetrating study of the importance of literary criticism within religious studies by examining several representative American authors.] J. Scott Lee, Invention: The Art of the Liberal Arts (Sante Fe, NM: Respondeo Books, 2020). [An argument for the possibilities and challenges of a liberal arts education today. Lee stresses that one discovers something essential about the humanities by way of reflecting on the activity of invention with respect to core texts and programs.] Mark Mattes, Martin Luther’s Theology of Beauty: A Reappraisal (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). [An excellent introduction to Luther’s theological aesthetics.] Kaethe Schwehn and L. DeAne Lagerquist, eds., Claiming Our Callings: Toward a New Understanding of Vocation in the Liberal Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). [A collection of essays on “vocation” in relation to the liberal arts by scholars at a leading Lutheran university in the United States.] Richard Viladeusau, Theology and the Arts: Encountering God through Music, Art and Rhetoric (New York: Paulist, 2000). [Using examples from music, the visual arts, and rhetoric, Viladeusau explores different aspects of the ways in which art and theology relate to one another. His work reflects Niebuhr’s third type.] Rowan Williams, Dostoevsky: Language, Faith, and Fiction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011). [An extraordinary interpretation of the major novels by the great Russian author, which takes seriously their theological themes. A major example of how theology contributes to both literary criticism and human understanding.] Terence R. Wright, Theology and Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988). [This work explores the ways in which literary genres produce theological meaning. Wright examines “narrative theology,” the importance of “story” in the Christian tradition, as well as the role that literature can play in unveiling theological understanding of God, human beings, and the world. Wright’s position with respect to the referentiality of texts is contrary to Frye’s structuralist approach.]

553

15 Christian Theology and the Sciences This chapter sketches ways in which Christian theologians seek interaction with the sciences in the university. After briefly describing the history of this interaction, the chapter analyzes various models of relating Christian theology to scientific knowledge. The chapter concludes by identifying several important scholars who have sought to bridge theological understanding and scientific knowledge.

One of the most basic questions in any introduction to Christian theology is the relation of Christian faith to the practice of human reasoning. While we have already explored this issue in Chapter 7 (“believing and knowing”), it is important to explore more fully the relationship between academic theology and the sciences (the human sciences and the natural sciences).1 Because Christian theology is about the revelation of God, the world, and human beings in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, its subject matter overlaps with that which the sciences investigate as well. Despite this overlapping, however, the claim of Christian theology is that the objects that the sciences investigate do not exhaust reality as a totality. Instead, the reality of the revelation of God remains central to a theological understanding of the world and human beings, indeed to a fuller understanding of the nature of reality itself. It is precisely this concern for the truth of God that defines theology’s task within the larger pursuit of knowledge, truth, and wisdom that marks the overall purpose of a liberal arts university. Roman Catholic theologian Heinrich Fries states: 1. For our purposes, the “human sciences” include such disciplines as paleontology and biology (insofar as they relate to human evolution), human genetics, anthropology, psychology, sociology, economics, political science, ethnic studies, gender studies, ecology, but also other academic fields of study that investigate human beings and their behavior, including disciplines relating to the practice of medicine. The “natural sciences” focus more broadly on the physical universe and include such disciplines as chemistry, physics, astronomy, meteorology, geology, biology, zoology, oceanography, and other disciplines that study the earth. Obviously, the distinction between the “human sciences” and the “natural sciences” is somewhat artificial, given that what the natural sciences investigate also involves the study of human beings. And all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, entails human knowers, whose subjectivity is always a factor in their knowing.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

If there are continued attempts to drive theology out of the university, the question must be asked whether the university is doing justice to its claim to think through the whole of reality methodically, whether the whole can be comprehensively thought through if the all-encompassing reality, God, is shut out along with everything associated with it in reality, experience and history. The departure of theology means a loss of knowledge and orientation, a loss of culture and tradition which have stamped and fundamentally determined us and this our time and world, even if that should be largely forgotten. The existence of theology in our faculties will and should remind us of these foundations, so that the sources and well from which we live to this day will not dry up.2

Inquiry into the relationship between Christian theology and the sciences takes place within all three branches of theology, but it is especially important to fundamental theology and the subdiscipline of ethics within practical theology. How do Christian understandings of God, creation, and human beings relate to understandings of nature that have been set forth in the human sciences and the natural sciences? How do scientific understandings of nature affect Christian theological understandings? How does one go about responsibly engaging Christian theology in relation to scientific knowledge and vice versa? How might Christian theology impact knowledge in the sciences and mathematics? Consider, for example, how Russian mathematician Nikolai Luzin (1883–1950), a Russian Orthodox Christian, was able to shed light on the mathematical question of infinity as a result of his theological understanding of the name of God.3 Given that theology entails critical reflection on metaphysics, it will also raise questions about why we can understand the world in the first place. Why is the world intelligible to us? Why is the world rationally transparent? Why does mathematics work? Why does nature give rise to mathematical beauty? Why this congruence between rational thought and the intelligibility of the physical world around us? Moreover, as we will note further on, why does the physical world around us seem extremely fine-tuned with respect to its given scientific laws and conditions? Where did those laws and conditions come from?

Modern encounters between theology and the sciences The history of the interaction between Christian theology and scientific knowledge is far more complicated than merely a series of conflicts and adjustments. As the 2. Fries, Fundamental Theology, 176. 3. See Jean-Michel Kantor and Loren Graham, Naming Infinity: A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical Creativity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).

555

556

Fundamental Theology

contemporary historian Thomas Dixon has shown, the narrative of a “warfare” between the natural sciences and Christian theology has been a self-serving construct that was invented by eighteenth-century Enlightenment rationalists, furthered by nineteenth-century freethinkers, and has been asserted more recently by popular atheists—all in an effort to support their various ideological commitments and worldview.4 The actual influence of Christianity on the rise of a scientific culture in the West was “far different and much more complicated” than what some have asserted when they claim that Christianity presented serious obstacles to the advancement of science.5 At times Christians and scientists have been at odds with one another, at other times they have worked independently of each other, and at still other times they have engaged in mutual dialogue and experienced positive interaction. It is important to underscore that science as a concrete human endeavor grew out of a culture in which the monotheistic belief in God the Creator was widely held by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This belief understands the world to be both rational and contingent, “a combination not at all to be taken for granted, yet crucial for the genesis of science as the dominant feature of modern culture and society.”6 At the dawn of the new age of modernity in the seventeenth century, leading scientists thus understood their work as a means of giving praise to God the Creator. Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who wrote more on theology than he did on natural science, held that his understanding of nature in mathematical terms attested to the glory of God. Discoveries in nature were understood to add to the knowledge of God and the perfections of his creative work. According to the Swiss natural scientist Charles Bonnet (1720–93): 4. Thomas Dixon, Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 9–10. For a very distorted historical account of the supposed “warfare” between science and Christian theology, see Andrew D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York: D. Appleton, 1896). For essays that provide contrary accounts of the history of the interaction between scientific knowledge and Christian theology, see David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986); and also Claude Welch, “Dispelling Some Myths about the Split between Theology and Science in the Nineteenth Century,” in Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, ed. W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman (London: Routledge, 1996), 29–40. Cf. also Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015). It needs to be said that some fundamentalistic theists have also contributed to a sense of “warfare” between the sciences and Christianity. 5. For the important role of Christianity in the development of science, see David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 149–51. For a compelling account of the influence of Christian theology on the rise and continuation of a scientific culture in Western civilization, see also Nick Spencer, The Evolution of the West: How Christianity Has Shaped Our Values (London: SPCK, 2016). 6. Reinhard Hütter, “Creatio Ex Nihilo: Promise of the Gift: Re-membering the Christian Doctrine of Creation in Troubled Times,” in Some Christian and Jewish Perspectives on the Creation, ed. Robert A. Brungs (St. Louis: ITEST Faith/Science Press, 1991), 10–11.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

God does not impart to us the knowledge of himself immediately. That is not the plan he has chosen. But he has commanded the heavens and the earth to proclaim his existence, to make himself known to us. He has endowed us with faculties susceptible of this divine language, and has raised up humans whose sublime genius explores their beauties, and who become his interpreters.7

Scientists in this early modern period who were Christians thus made use of a longstanding metaphor that understood nature to be one “book” written by the Creator and Scripture to be the other book. According to these thinkers, since God’s “book of nature” is reliable and not deceptive, and since human reason is a creaturely gift of God the Creator, human reason is a generally reliable means for “reading” that God-given “book.” The Logos, “the true light that enlightens everyone,” is after all also the means by which the world is created (Jn 1.9). From this deeply theological perspective, there is thus a correspondence between the human mind and the universe. This correspondence is made possible by the creative work of the Logos and his Spirit (Proverbs 8) that is operative in both the human mind and the universe. Consequently, the “book” of nature does not—indeed, cannot!—contradict the book of the Scriptures, properly understood. The same Logos that has created and redeemed the world—and thus the same Logos that makes the universe an intelligible and reliable entity—is the center of the Scriptures (Jn 1.1-18, 5.39-40; Lk. 24). He is the “wisdom” of God that makes “foolish” those who seek to understand the world and its future apart from him (1 Cor. 1). A classic example of an early modern type of natural theology was set forth by the eighteenth-century Anglican cleric William Paley, whom we briefly encountered in Chapter 5. Deeply influenced by the Newtonian picture of the universe as a mechanism, Paley compared nature to a finely designed watch that runs according to its preestablished order. For Paley, such complexity in nature is a strong argument for God as the intelligent Designer of the watch-like universe. Two of Paley’s books, Natural Theology (first published in 1802) and Evidences of Christianity (first published in 1794), went through multiple editions. His basic argument is well known. If someone found a watch in an uninhabited heath, that person would have to surmise on the basis of the intricate design and ordering of the various parts of the watch that it had been fashioned by a skilled craftsman. Paley declared that “every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism.”8 7. Charles Bonnet, The Contemplation of Nature (London: Longman, 1766), 2.229 (trans. modified), as quoted by Hans Schwarz, Vying for Truth—Theology and the Natural Sciences from the 17th Century to the Present (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 18. 8. Paley, Natural Theology, 19.

557

558

Fundamental Theology

Paley pointed to the complexity of the eye, for example, as sufficient evidence to refute atheism and to support his conclusion that the world had to have been created by an intelligent Designer.9 Over time, however, as empirical knowledge of nature grew, the kind of natural theology that Newton and Paley had undertaken became more and more marginalized in favor of Deism, materialism, and skepticism. According to a wellknown legend, after Napoleon had read the two-volume work on the universe by the French astronomer Simon-Pierre Laplace (1749–1827), he commented to the author, “Newton has spoken of God in his book. I have already gone over yours and have not found this name a single time.” In reply, Laplace is supposed to have said, “Citizen First Consul, I have no need for that hypothesis.”10 The universe could be understood completely apart from any reference to God. Closely tied to this view was the growing acceptance of a strictly materialistic and naturalistic worldview. The world’s functioning was understood to take place by necessity and according to orderly laws of cause and effect. While, as a student of theology, Charles Darwin (1809–82) had found Paley’s books useful, he later put them aside, since he was no longer confident that nature witnessed to a divinely caused design. When he published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he made clear the following key points: (1) random variations take place among species; (2) more offspring are born than can be supported by available resources, leading to a severe struggle for existence; (3) since some variations will be useful to organisms, the ones who possess such beneficial variations will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for existence; and (4) individuals with beneficial variations will pass on those useful traits to the next generation. In view of the process of “natural selection,” Darwin saw “no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with the physical conditions of life, which may have been affected in the long course of time through nature’s power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest.”11 Paley’s religious argument from design in nature, which formerly Darwin had accepted, now fell to the ground since the apparent design in nature could be fully explained by the law of natural selection. While this chapter is not the place to set forth a detailed summary of the physical data and rational arguments that support the well-established theory of evolution,

9. Cf. ibid., 19–21. 10. Quoted from C. B. A. Boyer, A History of Mathematics, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley, 1968), 568. 11. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (New York: Prometheus, 1991), 80. At nearly the same time as Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) developed a similar theory of biological evolution. The initial theory of evolution by natural selection underwent modification in the aftermath of Gregor Mendel’s theory of genetics. Mendel (1822–84) was an Augustinian friar and abbot in Moravia, whose experiments on peas

Christian Theology and the Sciences

some of the more important evidence ought to be listed, given how central this theory has been in discussions about Christian theology and science.12 1. The immense age of the universe is supported by the distances that light from stars has had to travel to reach earth. Distant galaxies are traveling away from the earth at a faster rate of speed than those galaxies that are closer to the earth. (The speed of light is constant and has been shown not to slow down over time.) Such data contribute to the general scientific consensus that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old (+/- 200 million years).13 2. Geological facts, including radioisotope testing of minerals in rocks on earth, provide consistent estimates that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old (+/- 50 million years). The concordat agreement of several different types of radioisotope testing further solidifies this conclusion.14 3. All over the earth fossils show hard structures of organisms that are less and less similar to modern organisms in progressively older rocks. Included in the fossil record are numerous “transitional” fossils, that is, fossils of organisms that fit “between” known groups. The fossil record indicates a transition from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, and then from reptiles to mammals.15 4. Groups of traits in biological organisms fall into a nested pattern. All species in a group will share traits they inherited from their common ancestor, but each subgroup will also have evolved unique traits of its own. Similarities bind groups together; differences show how they are subdivided. Significant similarities among different organisms are consistent with a common ancestor. 5. Other phenomena that indicate evolution is taking place in the present include the quick mutation of bacteria and viruses, similar DNA among similar species and genera, chromosomal changes in insect adaptation, the agricultural revolution, and applied breeding.

uncovered many of the principles of heredity. Many scholars refer to the integration of Darwin’s theory with Mendel’s theory as “neo-Darwinian evolution.” 12. A very good online resource that does address all aspects of the physical evidence for evolution, including rational and evidentiary responses to common “creationist” counterarguments, is www.talk​orig​ins. org. See also the website for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org) (both accessed July 31, 2023). 13. For more details about how scientists have reached this conclusion, see David A. Weintraub, How Old Is the Universe? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011). 14. For more details about how scientists have reached this conclusion, see G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1994). 15. For these and other details, see Brian Charlesworth and Deborah Charlesworth, Evolution: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

559

560

Fundamental Theology

6. If microevolution (i.e., change in gene frequencies through time in populations) can occur, then macroevolution can also occur, given sufficient time. The geological record is evidence of both sufficient time and of macroevolutionary changes through time.16 7. Perhaps the reason evolution persists as a theory is that it is a well-defined, consistent, and productive set of explanations for how evolutionary change takes place. In this sense, the theory of evolution is an eminently practical tool for producing new knowledge in the natural sciences. Clearly, the physical evidence summarized here cannot be reconciled with Bishop Ussher’s timescale (or any timescale less than billions of years), nor does it fit within a literalistic interpretation of the six-day sequence in the first chapter of Genesis.17 As theologian Hans Schwarz (b. 1939) shows in his detailed historical survey of the relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences, early Christian responses to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution were mixed.18 Some Christian leaders, such as the Anglican cleric Samuel Wilberforce (1805–73), condemned Darwin’s theory because it contradicted their reading of the Bible. These individuals were also deeply troubled by the possibility that if there really is no design in nature and everything in nature is the result of fixed laws, then there is no need for a Creator and Preserver, since nature is self-sufficient. The famous Scopes’ “monkey trial” of 1925 should also be understood in this context, as should the repeated criticism of evolution by conservative American church groups such as the Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod.19 But other Christian theologians at the end of the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth century held a more favorable view of Darwin’s theory (with some modifications) and saw no contradiction between it and their understanding of biblical truth. For example, the American naturalist Asa Gray (1810–88), who was 16. The earliest direct evidence of life on earth dates from approximately 3.5 billion years ago, although some scientists think life emerged even earlier, c. 4.1 billion years ago. Most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record about 540 million years ago, and the diversification of amphibians occurred about 200 million years later (c. 340 million years ago). The first mammals emerged around 225 million years ago, and the first birds around 110 million years ago. The fossil record also indicates that Neanderthals emerged around 400,000 years ago and lived until around 40,000 years ago. Homo sapiens first emerged around 350,000 years ago. See Ian Tattersall, Understanding Human Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022). 17. James Ussher (1581–1656) was the Archbishop of Armagh in the Church of Ireland. By counting backwards from known dates in the Bible, he concluded that creation took place on the evening preceding October 23, 4004 BC. 18. See Schwarz, Vying for Truth, 56–86. 19. Antievolution bills had been passed in many southern states in the early decades of the twentieth century. The Tennessee state legislature adopted such a bill in 1925, outlawing the teaching of any theory “that denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible.” A high-school teacher in the state, John

Christian Theology and the Sciences

a Christian and a professor of natural history at Harvard, concluded that Darwin’s theory could fit within Christian theism. While Gray acknowledged that Darwin’s theory could also support atheism (as could Newtonian physics, for that matter), he was convinced that “it is far easier to vindicate a theistic character” of the processes of evolution than an atheistic one.20 Gray was one of the first scholars to favor what is usually called “theistic evolution.” He held that Darwin’s theory did not necessarily diminish God’s creative action but might even enhance our understanding of its magnitude and complexity.21 Indeed, Darwin himself seems to have held something akin to this view, given his positive references to the Creator in the final pages of the Origin of Species and in his autobiography. As we noted in an earlier chapter, Darwin was not an atheist but a theist, who insisted on the action of the Creator as the First Cause of nature. (The codiscoverer of the law of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, also developed a form of theistic evolution. He was convinced that the higher mental faculties of humans had to have been caused by the divine Spirit.) Still other Christians who came out in favor of Darwin’s basic theory include the famous American preachers Henry Ward Beecher (1813–87) and Lyman Abbott (1835–1922). While many theologians in the middle decades of the twentieth century (e.g., Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich) avoided significant engagement with the implications of neo-Darwinian theory, more recently, both Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians have sought to reconcile the basic neo-Darwinian theory with Christian teaching about God the Creator. Most of these scholars end up articulating some form of theistic evolution.22 All of them address, in one way or another, the principal challenges that evolution presents for traditional Christian faith. For example, the physical data of evolution by natural selection and mutation have led many modern people to reject the idea of divine providence and the notion of a gracious, loving God who makes good promises for all of creation. What about Scopes (1900–70), was put on trial for violating this law. The trial became one of the most famous in US history. Defending the law and six-day creationism was William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), who was one of the most famous Democratic politicians at the time. On the other side was Clarence Darrow (1857–1938), a famous criminal defense attorney “and militant agnostic who ridiculed biblical literalism sharply” (Schwarz, Vying for Truth, 85). While Scopes was found guilty in the lower court, his conviction was overturned by the state’s supreme court. In the aftermath of the wide publicity that was given to the trial, fewer and fewer educated people agreed with the categorical rejection of evolution by Christian creationists, although the teaching of evolution in American public schools remains a controversial issue in some communities. For the LCMS’s position on “six-day young-earth creationism,” see Matthew L. Becker, “The Scandal of the LCMS Mind” (https://theday​ star​jour​nal.com/the-scan​dal-of-the-lcms-mind/ [(accessed July 31, 2023)]). Because of my criticism of six-day creationism, I was removed from the clergy roster of the LCMS in 2015. 20. Asa Gray, Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), 54. 21. Schwarz, Vying for Truth, 64. 22. Among the most famous twentieth-century Christian scholars to develop such a position was the Roman Catholic paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), whose life’s goal was to reconcile his Christian

561

562

Fundamental Theology

the extinction of the vast majority of animals that have lived on the planet in its multibillion-year history? How does God act in the universe? Does God intervene in nature? How does evolution affect theological understanding of human beings? In such a framework, what constitutes the uniqueness or the significance of human beings?23 Perhaps, following the lead of Catholic theologian Elizabeth A. Johnson (b. 1941), we should shift the perspective so as to approach “other species with concentrated attention to their story in all its struggle and delight.”24 While Darwin himself did not expand on the few metaphysical and theological comments he made in his writings, nor did he make any explicit inferences from his scientific observations and reflections, other scholars did so, such as the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1903). He developed an all-embracing notion of evolution that he applied to nation-states in racist, social, and economic terms. This worldview is often called “social Darwinism,” which still appears today among those who favor unfettered free-market competition, eugenics, and the “survival of the fittest” (a phrase coined by Spencer; Darwin did not use this phrase until the fifth edition of The Origin of Species [1869]). The early history of eugenics, which began in the nineteenth century, also demonstrates how some scholars developed overarching worldviews or made metaphysical and/or moral judgments on the basis of evolutionary theory that went well beyond the actual practice of their science. The work of some of these scientists directly led to eugenics programs in the United States and later in Nazi Germany.25

faith with the knowledge he learned from his scientific work. His two best known books are The Phenomenon of Man, trans. Bernard Wall (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), and The Divine Milieu (New York: Harper & Row, 1960). According to Teilhard, the process of evolution entails five stages: geogenesis (the beginning of the earth), biogenesis (the beginning of life), noogenesis (the emergence of mind), anthropogenesis (the beginning of humanity), and Christogenesis (the advent of what he called “the total Christ”). Accordingly, the process of noogenesis moves from mind through spirit to converge on the ultimate goal, which he called “the Omega Point.” For a basic introduction to current Christian views toward the theory of evolution, see The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, ed. J. B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 231–316. 23. Many of these issues and themes are identified in the writings of Langdon Gilkey. See especially, Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge (New York: Anchor Books, 1965); and Langdon Gilkey, Message and Existence, 69–107. 24. Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), xv. Johnson explores the nascent field of “ecological theology,” which asks that we “give careful consideration to the natural world in its own right as an irreplaceable element in the theological project” (xv). She does this by conducting a dialogue between Darwin’s account of the origin of species and the Christian narrative about “the ineffable God of mercy and love recounted in the Nicene Creed” (xv). 25. For this history, see Edwin Black, War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, 2nd edn (Washington, DC: Dialog, 2012).

Christian Theology and the Sciences

The role that ideology and metaphysical speculation have played in the natural sciences is one that is still being investigated.26 This connection becomes apparent when an implicitly atheistic ideology or metaphysical worldview surfaces in hubristic comments that scientists make about the nature of reality as a whole and about human beings within that reality. For example, the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) held that all religions are merely the product of human imagination and stem from the need to create “some warm and fuzzy meaning” to life.27 Gould thought that “the notion that we are all in the bosom of Abraham or are in God’s embracing love is … just a story we tell ourselves” to comfort ourselves in a cruel world.28 Another American paleontologist, George Gaylord Simpson (1902–84), made a related metaphysical assertion: “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”29 A similar metaphysical judgment is made by the British biologist Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) when he asserts that “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”30 The American historian of science William Provine (1942–2015) made a similar metaphysical assertion when he stated that modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society … We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us … There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make moral choices.31

26. See Denis R. Alexander and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., Biology and Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010). Each of this book’s thirteen essays sheds light on how biology has been used to further ideological interests that go far beyond science. While many historians and philosophers of science reject the radical view that science is only a social construction, there appears to be a consensus among historians of science that ideologies do play a constitutive role in the formulation of scientific knowledge. Cumulatively the authors show the various ways in which biology has been used for a variety of social, religious, and political purposes, whose outcomes may be beneficial, benign, or harmful, and yet whose aims are not necessarily intrinsic to biology itself. See also Mary Midgley, Evolution as a Religion (London: Routledge, 2002). She offers a careful analysis and sharp critique of those scientists who make metaphysical assertions as if they are the same as “science.” 27. Stephen Jay Gould, “Interview,” as quoted in Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 170. Cf. Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine, 1999), where he explicitly took a more irenic view of historic religions—provided they stay separated from interfering in the sciences. In the final pages of that book, Gould criticized scientists and theologians who engaged in the science/theology dialogue. 28. Gould, “Interview,” as quoted in Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, 170. 29. George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), 344. 30. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 132. 31. William Provine, “Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics,” MBL Science 3 (1988): 25–9.

563

564

Fundamental Theology

Consider also the metaphysical assertion by the American biologist Edward O. Wilson (1929–2021) that all behaviors (including religious and cultural ones) have only a genetic basis and are merely the result of blind chance and natural selection.32 If atheistic metaphysical extrapolations were genuinely inherent to the theory of evolution, then indeed Christian theology would be critical of it. That such a theory need not include such atheistic, materialistic metaphysical assumptions and speculations is quite clear from reading other scientific descriptions of evolution, which refrain from metaphysical speculation or remain open to some form of divine action, as in versions of theistic evolution, where God and evolution are distinct but related causes in nature. One does not have to read natural history as if it is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”33 One does not have to interpret the data in nature as if it inherently supports materialism and atheism (or racism, it needs to be underscored). The prominent British physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne stated it well: There’s no unique path from physics to metaphysics, and you can read it differently. I would understand it like this. I would say that the fruitful interplay between chance and necessity is a reflection of the twin gifts of freedom and reliability which God has given to the world, gifts which are reflections of the combined divine nature of love and faithfulness.34

When a scientist confidently maintains that science alone provides all the knowledge that we human beings can know, it should not be surprising if a philosopher or a theologian would attempt to show how that might not be the case. We have already noted in Chapters 5 and 6 how several philosophers of religion and scientifically informed theologians have responded to atheistic “scientism” (i.e., an absolute confidence that the methods and conclusions of natural science are the only basis of true knowledge; there is no such thing as religious “knowledge,” nor can literature or speculative philosophy create knowledge). Theologians have also responded to “scientific imperialism” (the transformation of religious knowledge into purely naturalistic, materialistic knowledge), to use the helpful label by Lutheran theologian Ted Peters (b. 1941).35 While these atheistic positions insist that there is only one reality, the natural, over which science alone has a monopoly of knowledge, 32. Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth (New York: Liveright, 2012). For a caustic, atheistic critique of “creationism” and “theistic evolution,” see Frederick C. Crews, “Saving Us from Darwin,” The New York Review of Books (October 18, 2001), https://www.nybo​oks.com/artic​les/2001/10/04/sav​ing-us-fromdar​win/ (accessed June 10, 2023). Crews presupposes that evolution implies the rejection of God and of any kind of divine action in the world. 33. Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 5, scene 5. 34. John Polkinghorne, “God’s Action in the World,” Cross Currents 41, 3 (Fall 1991): 301. 35. Ted Peters, “Science and Theology: Toward Consonance,” in Science and Theology: The New Consonance, ed. Ted Peters (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), 13.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

other scholars resist the elimination of religious knowledge or its transformation into purely naturalistic, materialistic categories.36 Christian theology will likely join that effort by insisting on the reality of its subject matter—the revelation of God, the world, and human beings—and attempting to keep open the question about God as the ground, source, and sustainer of all that is. It will show that human reasoning is not able to discover on its own all that is real and true. At the very least, it will strive to demonstrate that the reality of God is not irreconcilable with modern scientific knowledge of nature and that purely naturalistic assumptions and conclusions about the universe and human beings do not exhaust all the possible ways of interpreting them. According to Pannenberg, who was one of the leading twentieth-century Christian theologians in the area of science and theology: There is more to nature than simply what the scientists, working within the confines of the established disciplines, have been able to report. The reality of God is a factor in defining what nature is, and to ignore this fact leaves us with something less than a fully adequate explanation of things. The recognized contingency within natural events helps us perceive the contingency of nature’s laws, and this cannot be accounted for apart from understanding the whole of nature as the creation of a free divine creator … Our task as theologians is to relate to the natural sciences as they actually exist. We cannot create our own sciences. Yet we must go beyond what the sciences provide and include our understanding of God if we are properly to understand nature.37

So, for example, when the great mathematician and cosmologist Stephen Hawking (1942–2018) claimed that because “there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing” and that “spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” one should not be surprised that theologians will point out the fallacy of such assertions.38 George L. Murphy (b. 1942), another leading thinker in science and theology, has highlighted how Hawking involved himself in a number of logical contradictions: 36. Alvin Plantinga is quite right to identify the grounds for whatever conflicts exist between theism and science as residing in the unwarranted atheistic and naturalistic presuppositions of some scientists rather than in an actual conflict between “science” and “theism.” He locates the real conflict as occurring between “naturalism” (implying the nonreality of God and a worldview that denies the reality of God or anything like God), on the one hand, and science and theism, on the other. See Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). 37. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Doctrine of Creation and Modern Science,” in Wolfhart Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith, ed. Ted Peters (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 48. For an excellent overview of Pannenberg’s work in the area of science and theology, see Hans Schwarz, “Wolfhart Pannenberg,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, 611–21. 38. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Random House, 2010), 180.

565

566

Fundamental Theology

Hawking’s claim is incoherent. “Because there is a law such as gravity”—i.e., because there is something—”the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” It takes no scientific expertise to see that this sentence is self-contradictory. Religious leaders should be willing to rethink their teachings in the light of scientific discoveries, but they should also be prepared to refute obvious errors.39

Theology and the human sciences In this chapter we are giving more attention to theology and the natural sciences, but certainly theology is open to engagement with the human sciences and has been significantly impacted by their theories and findings. For example, recently theologians and religious psychologists have been interested in analyzing the religious and theological presuppositions that are often implicit in sociological and psychological theories. Scholarly work in this area has led some to conclude that there are important theological reasons for maintaining a skeptical outlook toward the metaphysical assumptions that sometimes get expressed by scientists. American Lutheran theologian Mark Mattes states: All too often, the sciences become reductionistic in their attempts to chart reality. Must not our quest for scientific understanding be tempered by humbly acknowledging that the buzzing, blooming manifold of experience, and the criteria of thinking itself, transcend a total conceptualization, either through [contemplation or action]? Theologically speaking, the greatest peril of the university, with all its various disciplines, is the attempt to establish—by whatever means—an encyclopedic “God’seye” view of reality, walking by sight, not by faith.40

One need not accept the rather stark “either/or” proposition that Anglican theo­ logian John Milbank (b. 1952) presents regarding a choice between accepting the presuppositions of the modern social sciences, which he argues are entirely premised on anti-Christian principles, or his version of Anglo-Catholic Christianity, in order to agree with him that many social scientists do in fact assume and operate with completely secular, antireligious perspectives that replace one set of theological presuppositions with another.41 Milbank is correct to highlight how aspects of “modernity,” including dominant social theories in the modern human sciences, are indeed wrapped up with theological presuppositions that often favor atheism and nihilism.42 39. George L. Murphy, Letter to the Editor, The Christian Century (November 16, 2010): 6. 40. Mark Mattes, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 179. 41. For a summary of his argument, see Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 3–6. 42. Milbank goes too far, however, when he reduces the human sciences to theologies that are alternative to his version of Platonic-Aristotelian-Augustinian-Thomistic orthodoxy. As in the natural sciences, so also in

Christian Theology and the Sciences

It was historically the case that “social science” arose in the nineteenth century from the belief that there had to be “a science of humanity” (beginning often with economics) that was wholly imitative of natural science. Of course some early social scientists were Christians, but they had trouble sustaining themselves amidst the pervasive assumptions of the disciplines, as they evolved. Other scholars of religious psychology and Christian theology have noted how various psychological theories also make religious and theological assumptions about human beings and their perceptions of reality.43 Christian theology is thus especially interested in the sociology and psychology of religion for the sake of engaging these disciplines on such matters as the interpretation of the human condition, the nature and character of human beings as social creatures, economic theories, global ecology, issues that arise in Christian practical theology (ecclesial studies that involve the human sciences and theological reflection upon social ethics and ecological sustainability), theologies of social and political liberation, and the criticism of dehumanizing and inhumane religious understandings. Important, too, are questions about the advent of extremely intelligent robots/machines and the risks and promises such artificial intelligence pose to society and the planet. Theology will always seek to maintain that human beings are more than merely economic and political creatures, that they do engage transcendent, ultimate, spiritual questions, and questions of personal and social identity and responsibility. Fries rightly emphasized: “Human beings are more than and other than simply what happens; they are more than the ensemble of the factors that determine them, more than all ‘isms’ and more than what can be known, grasped, and produced in the sciences. The human being lives not from bread alone.”44 Thus, a basic question that both theology and the human and natural sciences address is the one we raised in the last chapter: what is the human being?45 While

the human sciences, theology can be a partner in the pursuit of truth and justice, and it can become a mutual critic of inhumane and unjust behaviors and social orderings in church and society. God is at work in human societies, even apart from Christian communities, and not everything that occurs in secular life is necessarily idolatry. 43. For example, Terry D. Cooper’s works on Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Don Browning, and their interactions with psychology, show how these theologians identified theological and metaphysical assumptions about human beings and their perceptions of reality within psychological theories. See Terry D. Cooper, Paul Tillich and Psychology: Historic and Contemporary Explorations in Theology, Psychotherapy, and Ethics (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2006); and Terry Cooper, Reinhold Niebuhr and Psychology: The Ambiguities of the Self (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009). See also Don S. Browning and Terry D. Cooper, Religious Thought and Modern Psychologies, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). 44. Fries, Fundamental Theology, 176. 45. This is a central question in several recent works in science and theology, including Noreen L. Herzfeld, In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite,

567

568

Fundamental Theology

the differentiated human and natural sciences give varying (and conflicting) answers to this question, Christian theological anthropology also offers a unique perspective on the nature and purpose of human beings.46 As we have already summarized in Chapter 11, the biblical revelation unveils human beings to be both creatures, who are created in the image and likeness of God, and sinners, who frequently fail to live up to God’s just requirements for humankind. While Christian theology teaches that humans are unique creatures, whose spiritual and ethical dimensions reflect a special responsibility that God has given them in relation to the rest of nature, it also teaches that humans have not fulfilled their divine mandate to love God and the neighbor and to be just stewards of the earth and its resources. Humans are sinners who have fallen short of their God-given purpose and identity. Indeed, according to basic Christian teaching, human identity is broken and distorted by sin and threatened by human finitude and mortality. But human identity is also restored by God’s grace, mercy, forgiveness, and love in Jesus Christ. Indeed, according to basic Christian teaching, humans are intended for eternal life with God, the life that has been inaugurated in Jesus and that is given to people as a divine gift. In tension with a common assumption of people in contemporary Western culture, namely, that individuals have the right to define themselves and what it means for them to be human, Christian theology teaches that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, that they have their existence and responsibilities given to them, and that human identity is marked both by the reality of sin and death (fallenness and finitude) and by the need for divine mercy and salvation (redemption and new life in Christ).47 We are “called out of ourselves,” to faith in Christ and to love of all others. Called away from ourselves and our need “to create or fashion our own identity,” we live out our life through the various callings (“vocations”) and responsibilities that are given to us. From this perspective, the conviction that each person can and must define and shape their existence by themselves is not a sign of liberation but a kind of dangerous distortion. These theological perspectives are ones that theology seeks to explore in relation to genuine insights about human existence that can legitimately derive from the study ed., Adam, Eve, and the Genome: The Human Genome Project and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); James R. Beck and Bruce Demarest, The Human Person in Theology and Psychology: A Biblical Anthropology for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005); Nancey Murphy and Christopher C. Knight, eds., Human Identity at the Intersection of Science, Technology and Religion (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010); Stanley P. Rosenberg, ed., Finding Ourselves After Darwin: Conversations on the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Problem of Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018). 46. See, for example, Hans Schwarz, The Human Being: A Theological Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). 47. See esp. Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).

Christian Theology and the Sciences

of human biology, genetics, psychology, cultural anthropology, sociology, ecology, economics, and other human-centered disciplines, including history. Theology must be open to valid insights from these disciplines for the sake of gaining clarity and deeper truth about human beings. What are the implications that these other disciplines have for religion and theology?48 What do these disciplines teach us about the human being? Are we just a random outcome of “blind chance” in the long road of evolution? What is the connection between human identity and genetics? In what ways are human beings unique? Wherein lies their significance? Certainly our sense of ethical responsibility and our rational capabilities stand out in the world of nature and other creatures. How then should we understand human dignity? What constitutes human “personhood?”49 Why do people matter? To what extent are humans truly “free” or “autonomous?” How do we account for human consciousness? How do we make sense of the spiritual and ethical dimensions of human beings? What is meant by “the soul?”50 Of course, these questions gain greater specificity when directed to concrete ethical questions: Should physician-assisted suicide be legal? Should any restrictions be placed on abortion? Should reproductive cloning be supported? How, if at all, should health care resources be rationed? Is the destruction of human embryos for the benefit of others an affront to human dignity? Should humans be radically enhanced through biotechnology, even to the point that they become “transhuman,” as some enthusiasts claim and advocate? What are the ethical positions we ought to take at the frontiers of genetic bioengineering?51 As we noted in Chapter 5, recent work in the cognitive sciences, still in its infancy stages, lends some support to a phenomenological understanding of religious experience by endeavoring to uncover and explain the neural basis for such experience. Research in this area has led some scholars to conclude that religion is an integral aspect of human experience, that it has a biological basis, and that this biological basis is at least part of the reason why religions have not disappeared in scientifically informed cultures. Work in this area is by definition interdisciplinary,

48. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 21. 49. For more on this issue, see Michael Welker, ed., The Depth of the Human Person: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). 50. Cf. Jay Lombard, The Mind of God: Neuroscience, Faith, and a Search for the Soul (New York: Harmony, 2017). See also Peterson, Minding God, 3–22, 49–73. 51. These are some of the questions addressed in the collection of essays, Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance, ed. John F. Kilner (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). See also Audrey R. Chapman, Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics at the Frontiers of Genetic Science (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999); and James C. Peterson, Changing Human Nature: Ecology, Ethics, Genes, and God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).

569

570

Fundamental Theology

since it involves scientists, scholars of religious experience, and theologians who are seeking to understand the nature of religious experience.52

The anthropic principle As we noted in Chapter 6, a number of scholars, including several former atheists, think that the complex conditions necessary for the evolution of life make better sense in a theological framework that allows for an infinite Intelligence rather than a purely materialistic, atheistic framework that only allows for random, chance accidents. The fine-tuning that is evident in the laws of nature, the complex arrangements in DNA, the evolution of very complex and intricately organized organisms, including the evolution of purpose-minded human beings and their consciousness—all fit better with the theological affirmation about God as the underlying Creator and Sustainer of the universe. The issue of the fine-tuning in the laws of nature is particularly intriguing from a Christian theological perspective that views the presence of an intelligible cosmic “order” and explicable “regularity” in nature as consistent with faith in God the rational and orderly Creator. According to Englishborn physicist Paul Davies (b. 1946), “The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.”53

52. For a good introduction to this field of inquiry, see Andrew Newberg, Neurotheology: How Science Can Enlighten Us About Spirituality (New York: Columbia University Press, 2021). See also Markus Mühling, Resonances: Neurobiology, Evolution and Theology: Evolutionary Niche Construction, the Ecological Brain and Relational-Narrative Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). 53. Paul C. Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 189. See also Paul C. Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992). In the 1960s, astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915– 2001) noted that carbon, which is so crucial to life as we know it, came about by a rather delicate process that entails the simultaneous encounter of three helium nuclei inside the cores of immense stars. Because such triple nuclear encounters are quite rare, the reaction can take place at a significant rate only at certain well-defined energies (resonances), where the reaction rate is greatly amplified by quantum effects. By good fortune one of these resonances is positioned just about right to correspond to the sort of energies that helium nuclei have inside large stars. Hoyle was so impressed by this ‘monstrous accident,’ he was prompted to comment that it was as if ‘the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. (Paul C. Davies, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science,” in Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator, ed. John Marks Templeton [New York: Continuum, 1994], 48–9).

Christian Theology and the Sciences

Examples of the “fine-tuning” of these “fundamental constants” are the following:54 1. If the strong coupling constant was slightly smaller, hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If the strong coupling constant were slightly larger, hydrogen would have been converted into helium, and no long-living stars would have formed. In either case, life would not have emerged. 2. If the weak fine constant was slightly smaller, no hydrogen would have formed at the start of the universe. No hydrogen, no stars. If the weak fine constant was slightly larger, supernovae would have been unable to spew out the heavier elements needed for life. In either case, life would not have emerged. 3. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant was slightly larger, stars would not be hot enough to warm planets capable of sustaining life. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant was slightly smaller, stars would have burned out too quickly to allow for life to evolve. 4. If the gravitational fine structure constant were slightly weaker, stars and planets would not have been able to form. If the gravitational fine structure constant were slightly stronger, stars would have burned out too quickly to allow for the evolution of life. For the Christian believer, these observations are consistent with their faith in God the Creator. Indeed, the so-called “anthropic principle” (that the laws of nature seemed to have been designed to lead to the emergence of human beings) coheres rather nicely with such a theistic perspective.55 While this notion does not constitute a “proof ” for the reality of God, it is at least consistent with this reality. A similar coherence between faith in God and “fine-tuning” in nature might also be present with respect to the origin of life.56 Toward the end of his life, Hoyle gave up atheism and adopted a theistic worldview. He was convinced that the fine-tuning in the laws of nature was the result of a supernatural Mind, not the result of blind chance and purely natural causes. 54. For the following, cf. McGrath, Science & Religion: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 182–3. Cf. Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2000). 55. See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). 56. It is not at all evident that life will automatically form in any Earth-like environment, nor is it clear that life will automatically produce self-consciousness and intelligence. The complexity of life on Earth may be unique. The issue of a naturalistic understanding of the extraordinarily complex origin of life remains a stubborn mystery. All efforts to coax life from its necessary components in a laboratory have failed. See Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984); and Paul C. Davies, The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999). For a Lutheran perspective on the possible theological

571

572

Fundamental Theology

Creationism and intelligent design While most Christians will insist that those who practice “scientism” and “scientific imperialism” are wrong to reject the reality of God, some Christians have unfortunately reacted to the atheistic metaphysical positions of some scientists by merely appealing to church authorities or to the authority of the Bible. These so-called “creationists” or “scientific creationists” insist that only the authority of the church or the authority of the Bible ought to be followed in scientific matters.57 If church tradition or one’s particular reading of biblical cosmology conflicts with scientific findings, then too bad for those findings. We saw in an earlier chapter how Francis Pieper is an example of this creationist approach. Not only did he reject Darwinian evolution because it conflicted with his literal reading of the “six days” of creation in the first chapter of Genesis, but he even rejected the Copernican view of the solar system, since it conflicted with his literal reading of those biblical statements that speak of the earth being founded on an immovable foundation and of the sun moving around the earth. (Pieper’s position to the contrary, most Christians today interpret Ps. 19.1-4a [where the sun is said to “rise” and “run it course”] and Josh. 10 [where Joshua extends the day by causing the sun to “stand still”] differently from pre-Copernicus Christians, since they know that the sun does not actually “run” its “circuit” around the earth. Prior to Galileo’s time, nobody interpreted these and similar verses the way modern Christians do. After Galileo, Christians had to adjust their interpretation of Scripture, though indeed many Christians continued to think the sun orbits the earth and some still thought the earth was flat.) More recently, some creationists have asserted that God purposely put dinosaur or other fossils in the geological layers “to test one’s faith,” that is, to test whether one will hold to a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Another speculative assertion by some creationists is that God purposely made the universe to look mature or old, even though it is really young (around 6,000 years old).58 Those who call themselves “scientific creationists” try to demonstrate from appeals to very selective scientific knowledge (and criticism of other knowledge) that a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis (God creating the world over the implications that the discovery of intelligent life beyond Earth might have for Christian faith, see Olli-Pekka Vainio, Cosmology in Theological Perspective: Understanding Our Place in the Universe (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018). Vainio is both a Finnish-Lutheran historical theologian and a NASA-funded cosmologist. 57. For an historical analysis of the rise of “scientific creationism” in twentieth-century Protestant fundamentalism, see Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). For a classic example of a creationist position in Lutheranism, see John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), which defends a universal flood, a young earth, and a six-day creation. 58. Philip Henry Gosse (1810–88) appears to have been the first one to put forth the theory that God made the earth to look old.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

course of six 24-hour days only several thousand years ago) fits quite well with the scientific data.59 Each of these positions of creationism or scientific creationism has been rightly criticized by scientists and theologians alike. Why would God try to deceive us in these ways, for example, by making the universe 6,000 years ago or, as others have suggested, just a millisecond ago, complete with all our memories, but then give it the appearance of being 13.7 billion years old? If God did this, would not such a deception make God deceptive? Is not such a deception in nature contrary to what Scripture teaches us about the reliability of nature (e.g., Ps. 19.1-4; Rom. 1–2), not to mention the reliability of God? This recent and innovative speculation about a “maturelooking but really young universe” has only one concern, to maintain a treasured, literalistic reading of the first chapter of Genesis, since the theological starting point is the unquestioned assumption that God made the universe over the course of six twenty-four hour days a short time ago. A problematic consequence of this view is that God is deceptive and cannot be reliably trusted in the realm of nature. Why

59. Already in early Judaism and in the early church, scholars recognized that there are two accounts of creation in the early chapters of Genesis. Aside from the theological appropriation of physical data from “God’s book of nature” to assist one in the interpretation of those biblical texts that also address “nature,” even a careful reading of those initial chapters in Genesis ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that a literalistic reading of these chapters is untenable and inappropriate: Did God create over the course of six days (1.1–2.4a), or on one day or at one moment (2.4b; cf. Sirach 18.1)? How can there be an “evening” and a “morning” prior to the creation of the two great lights? Was Adam created after the creation of plants (1.26-31), or was he created prior to the creation of plants (2.4b-25)? Were animals created prior to the creation of Adam (male and female [1.20-25]), or were animals created after Adam (male) but before the creation of Eve (female [2.18-23])? Were birds created a day earlier than all land animals (1.20-25), or were land animals created before the birds and on the same day as the birds were created (2.19-20)? Did God finish creating after the sixth day (2.2-3), or has God continued to create after the sixth day (cf. Jn 5.17)? If one’s answer to these questions is that some of the language must be taken as figurative, whereas other expressions are to be taken literally, then one must ask, “On what basis?” For example, how can one so easily understand the “day” in 2.4b to be a figurative expression and that the consecutive “days” in chapter one are to be understood as literal 24-hour days? On what basis does one make these decisions? If one allows the Copernican Theory to influence one’s judgment that Scripture speaks figuratively when it states that the earth rests on pillars or a foundation, that it has four corners, that it does not move, and that the sun rises, moves across the sky, and sets, then what is to prevent the biblical interpreter from gaining assistance from the natural sciences in understanding the contemporary meaning of the early chapters of Genesis? A basic, hoary principle of biblical interpretation here applies: the interpreter of Scripture ought to take a scriptural text literally unless there are good reasons to take it otherwise. To get some understanding of the rich array of interpretations of Gen. 1–2 in the history of biblical exegesis, see Kyle R. Greenwood, ed., Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018). This volume shows that “literal” interpretations of these biblical chapters have rarely been “univocal” (i.e., where one word is assigned one and only one meaning). The literal reading of these passages led instead to christological, eschatological, allegorical, typological, philosophical, and Midrashic understandings.

573

574

Fundamental Theology

would God play such silly games? While creationists stress that scientists can make mistakes, they do not often admit that sinful, limited human beings, interpreting the first chapters in Genesis and other cosmological passages, could also possibly make a mistake in their interpretations of biblical passages. Of course, a “young earth” created to look mature is scientifically indistinguishable from the 4.54 billion-yearold earth that scientists study today! A more sophisticated approach to creation is taken by some individuals who have tried to overturn standard naturalistic accounts of neo-Darwinian evolution by appealing to features in nature that appear to be “irreducibly complex” or to have been “intelligently designed” by direct divine causation.60 It is important to note that those who support the theory of “Intelligent Design” (ID) generally accept the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe, the Big Bang, the age of the earth, and the evolution of species. Moreover, they do not attempt to fit all the scientific data into a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. For example, American biochemist Michael Behe (b. 1952) has argued that there are biological structures that could not possibly have been produced by the natural processes of evolution since they are “too complex.” He and likeminded theists have appealed to a supernatural intelligent Designer as the direct cause of these “irreducibly complex” structures. His goal is to undermine neo-Darwinian theory since Darwin claimed that if it could be shown that any complex organ existed that “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,” then his theory would collapse. Behe thought that he had found such complexity in the flagella of bacteria (which require approxminately forty proteins for it to work properly) and mitochondria. Since irreducibly complex structures have many parts that must work together for the larger organism or structure to work at all, the absence of any one of the complex parts would make the whole structure nonfunctional. Behe argues that it is more rational to think that a supernatural intelligent designer (“Mind”) is behind this development, not mere chance mutations and natural selection. More recently, Stephen Meyer (b. 1958), who earned a PhD in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, has also argued from the complexity of information in the genetic code of all living things toward the inference that a supernatural intelligent Designer is the cause of those structures. It is reasonable to ask, as Meyer does, how such huge amounts of functionally specific information could have arisen in DNA from purely naturalistic causes. It seems unlikely to him and others who favor ID theory that such a complicated ordering of information can be explained by random genetic mutations and natural selection.61 For Meyer, the 60. For the major texts that present versions of the theory of “Intelligent Design” (ID theory), see especially Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991); Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 1996); and William Dembski, ed., Mere Creation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998). 61. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009).

Christian Theology and the Sciences

best explanation for the origin of DNA is therefore to argue that a superintelligent, supernatural cause is ultimately responsible. As an historian and philosopher of science, Meyer has been particularly concerned to highlight the deep connection between the presuppositions of naturalism and current articulations of evolutionary theory. Like others, he raises critical questions about those presuppositions and whether they are justified. In a subsequent work, he points to the “Cambrian explosion” (better called the Cambrian rapid diversification) of life as a further piece of evidence that supports the inference of a supernatural Mind as the cause of life.62 Against those who insist that the theory of evolution implies a purposeless universe and the meaninglessness of human life, Meyer argues that claims to human dignity and purpose can be sustained only if the human being can be shown to be the result of God’s special action. Both Behe and Meyer have been active in the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which is the principal organization that is defending ID theory. (Meyer is the current director of the Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.) According to its mission statement, the Discovery Institute wants “to advance a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.”63 If one examines its online resources and programming, it is clear that this organization wants to demonstrate that the universe and life are the result of God’s creative action, and that the materialistic conception of a self-caused, self-organizing universe is not supported in nature itself. Moreover, this organization challenges the standard neo-Darwinian view that life on earth developed through a blind process of purposeless chance. ID theorists maintain the origin of the universe and of life cannot be adequately explained scientifically without reference to “Mind” and an “intelligent designer.” “Mind, not matter,” they assert, “is the source and crown of creation, the wellspring of human achievement.”64 This statement, of course, is a principal point of disagreement between ID proponents and mainstream scientists. The latter operate with a naturalistic methodology, whereas the former insist on teleological considerations. In several court cases, judges have ruled against ID efforts to introduce “intelligent design” into public-school classrooms. In a 2005 case, Judge John Jones ruled that the introduction of ID theory into public-school classrooms was unconstitutional since it cannot “uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”65

62. Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2013). 63. The Discovery Institute, “Mission,” https://www.discov​ery.org/about/miss​ion/ (accessed May 31, 2023). 64. The Discovery Institute, “Mission,” https://www.discov​ery.org/about/miss​ion/ (accessed May 31, 2023). 65. Judge John E. Jones, “Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover” (2005), as quoted in J. B. Stump, Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017), 49.

575

576

Fundamental Theology

According to Judge Jones, ID theory does not qualify as “science,” since it appeals to a supernatural intelligent Designer. While claiming to be science, ID supporters have failed to identify any testable hypothesis, a basic component of all scientific discovery. As I point out elsewhere in this chapter, it does make theological sense to draw attention to the presence of order, complexity, and even beauty in nature as pointers toward God as the transcendent cause and sustainer of the world as God’s creation. The fact that the human mind can discern and investigate this ordering of nature is of tremendous significance. Indeed, one of the purposes of theology in relation to the sciences is to keep open the issue of teleology in nature, to keep open the question of the purpose of creation and of the human being within creation. That being said, many of the examples of so-called “irreducible complexity” that Behe has used in his argument could have evolved from preexisting structures, that is, they could very well be the result of natural causes.66 Many critics of ID theory thus think that if ID theory is taken seriously it would undermine scientific investigation of the natural causes of things. Why look for a natural, empirical, rational explanation for mysteriously complex phenomena when the whole point of the ID theorists’ appeal to “complexity” is to argue that it could not have arisen through natural means and could only be the result of direct action by a transcendent Mind? One needs to underscore that just because something is mysterious or apparently complex does not mean that God is the direct cause of that mystery or complexity. The sciences may eventually uncover a fully natural, empirical cause and a rational explanation that needs no recourse to a direct supernatural cause. The sciences should indeed avoid appealing to God as the explanation for the gaps in our scientific knowledge of nature. Of course, as we saw in Chapter 6, it is perfectly rational to infer from one’s overall impression of an underlying, mathematical order and complexity in nature that there is an intelligent Creator of the universe. It may well be the case that the natural sciences will never be able to set forth a convincing naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe or for the origin of life and that ID theorists may be correct in arguing that these origins are best explained by appealing to a supernatural Mind that has caused them. Nevertheless, the inference of a supernatural intelligent Designer is itself further grounded in special revelation and properly expressed as an article of religious faith (“I believe that God has made me and all things”). A practicing scientist, however, will not use such an inference to attempt an explanation for some 66. For a critique of Behe and the theory of Intelligent Design, see Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, 130–64. Critics of ID theory point to counterevidence against their theory, for example, the large amount of evidence in nature of poor design, for example, Darwin’s example of the Ichneumonidae wasp, whose eggs are laid inside a caterpillar, who then becomes food for the wasp larvae. The issue of theodicy is always lurking in discussions of natural theology.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

specific matter in nature that appears to be divinely designed or so complex that only a supernatural cause is sufficient to explain it. Truly scientific explanations for natural phenomena reside at the natural, empirical, and rational level of the investigation of nature. Theological inferences about God the Creator and about the universe as God’s creation reside at a different level, a kind of “second-order” level that embraces the former, natural level but transcends it as well. One of the classic early scientists, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who was himself a practicing Lutheran Christian, alluded in a prayer to this distinction between firstorder and second-order causes in nature: I give Thee thanks, O Lord Creator, because I have delighted in thy handiwork … I have made manifest the glory of thy works, insofar as the narrowness of my mind could grasp its infinity … deign graciously to cause that these [scientific] demonstrations may lead to thy glory and to the salvation of souls, and nowhere be an obstacle to that. Amen.67

Note how Kepler refrained from appealing to God as a sufficient explanation for specific natural processes but allowed that the demonstrations themselves might lead people to acknowledge the glory of God. Kepler held that the overall harmony he detected in the universe reflected the wisdom of the Creator. What Luther said in his explanation to the first article of the Apostles’ Creed (on God the Creator) about human reason and senses is also apropos: “I believe that God has created me … God has given me and still preserves my body and soul; eyes, ears, and all limbs, and senses; reason and all mental faculties.”68 Like most other academic theologians, Luther had high regard for the power of human reason and human senses to uncover reliable knowledge in nature.69 While he held that human 67. Johannes Kepler, Harmonice Mundi, bk. 5, chap. 9, in Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke, vol. 6, no. 362, as translated and quoted in Mortimer Adler, How to Prove There Is a God: Mortimer J. Adler’s Thoughts about God, ed. Dzugan (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 2012), 57. 68. Luther, Small Catechism (the Creed), BC, 354 (emphasis added). 69. Luther’s understanding of faith in God the Creator accords well with the contemporary metaphysical view toward reality that is often called “critical realism.” A basic claim for this position is that “the long-term success of a scientific theory gives reason to believe that something like the entities and structures postulated in the theory actually exists” (Ernan McMullin, “A Case for Scientific Realism,” in Scientific Realism, ed. Jarrett Leplin [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984], 26). McMullin was in part responding critically to historian Thomas Kuhn’s famous thesis that science is largely a matter of social construction. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962; 2nd edn, 1970). According to Kuhn, the course of science moves through periods when a paradigm—a broad conceptual framework—is held and used, and periods of revolution when a new paradigm dramatically replaces the old one. Kuhn noted that the history of science demonstrates that scientists typically do not abandon their theories in the face of falsifying evidence. In the second edition of his book, he acknowledged that paradigms are not purely social constructs and that they are to be evaluated by their ability to identify and solve anomalies.

577

578

Fundamental Theology

reason cannot attain to God or serve as a solid basis for faith, it is a gift of God: “And it is certainly true that reason is the most important and highest in rank among all things and, in comparison with other things of this life, the best and something divine.”70 Reason is “the inventor and mentor of all the arts, medicines, laws, and of whatever wisdom, power, virtue, and glory human beings possess in this life.”71 According to Luther, even after the fall into sin, God did not “take away this majesty of reason, but rather confirmed it.”72 Within its earthly limits, in relation to the world of nature, human reason is to be highly esteemed. Whoever would be knowledgeable about worldly things should study all forms of secular literature, including natural philosophy (what we today would call “science”). Good schools are thus necessary to instruct people in these worldly matters for the sake of human flourishing and justice in this world. In contrast to Luther’s generally favorable view of reason, however, six-day creationism implies that human observation and reasoning about nature are unreliable and that the interpretation of biblical passages that deal with cosmology must be literal, even though such a literal interpretation directly conflicts with what the sciences have correctly uncovered regarding the age of the universe and the natural history of the earth. Such a creationist approach to the interpretation of Scripture has neglected the important hermeneutical principle articulated by Augustine and other venerable Christian scholars, namely, that facts of nature, discovered by the reliable means of human observation and reasoning, have a direct bearing on the careful interpretation of those scriptural passages that also concern nature. The true sense of Scripture about creation will agree with established natural fact, something Christian theology has been affirming since the days of the Christian Apologists (second century), the Cappadocians (fourth century), and Augustine (late fourth and early fifth centuries), but which has had to be relearned after Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), Darwin, and Edwin Hubble (1889–1953).

70. Luther, The Disputation Concerning Man (1536), LW1, 34.137 (trans. modified). It is worth highlighting that with respect to faith in God, Luther held that reason was often deceived. “I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my LORD or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy and kept me in the truth faith” (Luther, Small Catechism [The Creed], BC, 355). As one scholar has described Luther’s theology of reason: “Reason would be completely overstepping itself if it dared to put itself in the place that belongs to the Holy Spirit!” (Hans-Martin Barth, The Theology of Martin Luther: A Critical Assessment [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013], 407). 71. Luther, The Disputation Concerning Man, LW1, 34.137. 72. Ibid., 34.137.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

Rethinking the Christian doctrines of creation and sin Scripture itself indicates that we can trust the facts of nature and need not try to reinterpret their “speech” to us, even if such “speech” apparently conflicts with our particular interpretations of Scripture. If there is an apparent conflict between natural data and a straightforward, literal interpretation of Scripture, then interpreters need to reexamine their interpretation of Scripture and keep an open, humble posture toward the self-correction of scientific theories within science itself. We need not try to reinterpret the data of nature to fit with a noncritical reading of biblical cosmology. God does not deceive us in the realm of nature, God’s creation. Indeed, the scientific data discovered in nature assists us toward an appropriate understanding of scriptural passages that also speak of nature. While self-correction within the sciences may be assisted by criticism from within the philosophy of science and by reflection on the metaphysical and theological issues that arise from within the practice of science, merely citing Scripture and/or church tradition to reject scientific knowledge is inconsistent with Christian academic theology. Augustine has perhaps underscored this point best: Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brothers when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which

579

580

Fundamental Theology

they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.73

Of course, figurative, nonliteralistic interpretations of the stories in the early chapters of Genesis and of other stories that have cosmological implications do entail some revision in one’s articulations of the Christian doctrines of creation, anthropology, and sin, and many Christians are deeply uncomfortable with such a prospect. This discomfort is at least as great as the discomfort many sixteenth-century Christians must have felt in view of the revision to traditional teaching that the Copernican Theory entailed. As then, however, so also now: such modification would not necessarily undermine an orthodox understanding of creation, human beings, sin, and grace. Such revision would need to address important issues, for example, the nature of God’s good creation prior to the evolution of human beings, the nature of suffering and physical death as a part of God’s creation prior to human evolution, the nature of human uniqueness and dignity, and the origin and nature of sin. The scientific data about the reality of physical death in the animal and plant kingdoms prior to origin of human beings (e.g., fossils of animals that lived long before the origin of human beings) must lead those who interpret the Bible in light of scientific knowledge to recognize that God’s creation must have included the realities of suffering and death prior to the existence of human beings.74 Nevertheless, Christian faith insists that death is ultimately overcome by God’s loving and salvific action in Jesus. Greater than evolution and death is God’s abiding love and faithfulness. God alone can redeem and transform all suffering and death. The evil of death and the threat of nonbeing do not have the final say, at least in the perspective of Christian faith and hope. To trust that God can bring one through suffering and death into eternal life is a basic teaching of the Christian gospel. This teaching is grounded in God’s raising of Jesus from the dead and in the promise of eternal life with God. An elemental Christian prayer is one that is attributed to a criminal who died beside Jesus on another cross: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Lk. 23.42). Other Christian teaching will also need to be slightly reframed. For example, one could conclude that God breathed God’s “breath” into ancient hominids, thereby conferring humanity and the image of God upon them.75 Or it could be that we 73. Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2 vols, trans. John Hammond Taylor (New York: Newman, 1982), 1.42–3. Mark Noll uses this quote from Augustine for a purpose similar to mine. See Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 202–3. 74. Viruses have shaped evolution from the very beginning. It is remarkable to consider that about 8 percent of human DNA comes from viruses that infected our ancient ancestors and inserted viral genes into their genomes. Some of these genes now play a crucial role in the early stages of embyonic development and the placenta that surrounds embryos. 75. Cf. Stump, Science and Christianity, 116.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

need to rethink what it means that humans are created in “the image of God,” as I have outlined in Chapter 11. We bear “the image of God” because we are called into relationship with God and we represent God to the rest of God’s creation. The historical origin of sin would also need to be analyzed more carefully and more profoundly and less literally. While the advent of sin (“original sin”) is to be traced to the first hominids who disobeyed God’s will, it is not necessary to trace that origin to an actual couple who ate from a tree in an actual place called the Garden of Eden. While the fall into sin had to have taken place on earth at the dawn of human history (i.e., human sin had a beginning and has impacted the whole of humankind), we need to be careful not to focus our attention so much on that originating event that we lose sight of Paul’s teaching about “Adam,” namely, that “Adam” as “the first human being,” is the representative of all sinful humankind. Paul’s few references to “Adam” are made in the context of proclaiming Christ, “the second Adam,” the progenitor of a new humanity. The Augsburg Confession says, “[Our churches] teach that since the fall of Adam all human beings who are propagated according to nature are born with sin, that is without fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence.”76 It is the second half of this sentence, not the first, that distinguishes the genuinely Lutheran understanding of original sin from other pre- and postReformation versions of that doctrine. The problem with creationist understandings of Gen. 3 is that they often tend to concentrate on affirming that Adam and Eve were two real historical human beings, as if the church’s teaching about original sin could be more effectively stated and more firmly grounded by focusing primarily on the two original sinners rather than on hearing the truth of Gen. 3 as it reveals and diagnoses our own lack of fear and trust in God. (One needs to note that the words historical, historicity, and real are neither biblical nor confessional.) The main point of Gen. 3 is not merely that two people some time ago fell into sin, something over and done with, but that these words of God diagnose sin and sinners today, still condemn sinners to death, and promise rescue to present readers and hearers. “Adam” (= “humankind”), as Paul says very clearly, is the one “in whom all are dying” (notice: the one in whom all are still dying) as Christ is the one in whom “all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15.22 [emphasis added]). As the Lutheran Confessions state over and over, Adam is “der alte Adam,” “the old Adam,” that which “is born in us from Adam.”77 “Adam,” therefore, is still very much a present reality and mortally powerful. That Adam, in which we are all

76. Augsburg Confession, Art. II (BC, 37–9); Smalcald Articles, Part III, sec. 1, “Concerning Sin,” BC, 310–11. Cf. Robert Bertram, “Informal Remarks on the Historicity of Adam,” The Promising Tradition, 2nd edn, ed. Edward Schroeder and Robert Bertram (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary in Exile, 1974), 41v–41x. Bertram’s reflections on “Adam” inform the content of this paragraph. 77. Luther, Large Catechism (Baptism, 65), BC, 465 (emphasis added).

581

582

Fundamental Theology

sinning and dying, can only be defeated by nothing less than dying and rising with Christ, a dying and rising that begins in baptism.78

Barbour’s four models In seeking to map the various ways in which Christian theology and scientific knowledge have been related, American physicist and theologian Ian G. Barbour (1923–2013) has identified four models.79 These four approaches to science and religion are conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.80 We have already touched on the model of conflict, which appears in scientism (or scientific materialism), on the one hand, and biblical literalism (or creationism), on the other.81 Both positions at either end of this spectrum between “science” and “religion,” as these outlooks define them, see science and religion as rivals. The only difference between the two is that the one side puts total confidence in “science,” 78. I am by no means the first conservative confessional Lutheran theologian to seek to relate an understanding of theistic evolution to the doctrinal teaching of the Lutheran Confessions regarding human beings. Cf., for example, Hermann Sasse, “Studien zur Lehre von der Heiligen Schrift,” in Sacra scriptura: Studien zur Lehre von der Heiligen Schrift, ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Hopf (Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.-Luth. Mission, 1981), 55–62. Sasse (1895–1976) was a professor of theology at Erlangen University and later at Immanuel Seminary in Adelaide, Australia. 79. Barbour, who significantly influenced the modern dialogue between the sciences and theology, earned a BS degree in physics from Swarthmore College, an MS degree in physics from Duke University, and a PhD in physics from the University of Chicago. His theological degree was from Yale. For several decades he was a professor at Carlton College, where he taught religion and physics and was the director of science, ethics, and public policy. His ground-breaking book, Issues in Science and Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), set the basic lines of conversation in the contemporary dialogue between Christian theology and the natural sciences. In 1999 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. For a good overview of his life and work, see Nathan J. Hallanger, “Ian G. Barbour,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, 600–10. 80.

Ian

Barbour,

When

Science

Meets

Religion:

Enemies,

Strangers,

or

Partners?

(San

Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000), 7–38; Cf. Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures 1989–1991, vol. 1 (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), 3–30. 81. Barbour pointed to the astronomer Carl Sagan (1934–96) as an example of scientific materialism. In his best-selling book, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), and his television series of the same title, Sagan presented many discoveries of modern astronomy, but he occasionally interjected his own philosophical commentary. For example, at one point he states that the universe is eternal or that its source is unknowable. At times he ridiculed Christian understandings of God. Throughout the book and the series he revealed his absolute confidence in the scientific method as the only reliable path to knowledge. He held that the laws and theories of the sciences are in principle reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. While he hammered away at fundamentalist Christianity, superstitions, and psychics, he rarely engaged well-informed, universitybased theologians.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

while the other side puts total confidence in their literalistic interpretation of the Bible. In their metaphysics, Barbour shrewdly observed, scientific materialists “have extended scientific concepts beyond their scientific use to support comprehensive materialistic philosophies … We do not have to conclude that matter alone is real or that mind, purpose, and human love are only byproducts of matter in motion. Theism, in short, is not inherently in conflict with science, but it does conflict with a metaphysics of materialism.”82 For their part, biblical literalists also perpetuate a false dilemma of having to choose between science and Christian faith. Barbour quotes Pope John Paul II: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world in which both can flourish.”83 Barbour’s second model, independence, describes those who view science and theology as two separate disciplines, each with its distinctive domain and type of language. On the theological side, many who fall into this group had been influenced by Karl Barth, who generally declined to engage in discussion about the impact of scientific knowledge on theological knowledge and vice versa.84 Such disengagement contributed to the separation of theology from the sciences and to the charge by many scientists that theology is pseudo-knowledge and merely a matter of subjective values. Such a view has led some to develop what Ted Peters and others have called a “two-language theory” of the relation of science and theology. In this view, theology speaks only one language, that of “values,” while science speaks only one language, that of “facts,” and the two languages are simply incommensurate with one another. Each language needs to be restricted to its respective domain and should not interfere with the language and operations of the other. On the scientific side, the paleontologist Stephen Gould called this position the NOMA principle, that is, “nonoverlapping magisteria.” In this view, each discipline, theology and the sciences, has its own separate, authoritative domain that should not infringe upon the other: NOMA is a simple, humane, rational, and altogether conventional argument for mutual respect, based on non-overlapping subject matter, between two components of wisdom in a full human life: our drive to understand the factual character of nature (the magisterium of science) and our need to define

82. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, 14. 83. Pope John Paul II, “Message of His Holiness John Paul II,” in John Paul II on Science and Religion: Reflections on the New View from Rome, ed. Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and George V. Coyne (Vatican: Vatican Observatory, 1990), M13 (as quoted in Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, 17). 84. It should be noted, however, that Barth did not reject scientific accounts of the evolution of human beings. While he radically undercut reliance on human knowledge and behavior in order to make his strongest assertions about a theology of revelation, he did accept scientific accounts of human anthropology within their limits, and then he reinterpreted them christologically. See especially Barth, CD, 3/2.21–132.

583

584

Fundamental Theology

meaning in our lives and a moral basis for our actions (the magisterium of religion).85

A similar position has also been supported by some Christian theologians, such as Langdon Gilkey, who held that science talks about proximate data while religion deals with existential and ultimate questions. Science address questions of “how,” he believed, and theology addresses those of “why.”86 While “a wall of separation” between theology and the sciences was perhaps necessary for a time, in order to advance both science and theology beyond the “warfare” model, such a metaphor has itself created problems for both disciplines and has been shown to be an impossible ideal. For example, this view of the relation of science to theology implies that there can be no shared understandings between science and theology; but many today are attempting to show that such common understandings are possible and needed. Furthermore, the “two-language theory” tends to ignore the reality that theology also attempts to speak of “facts” and “knowledge,” just as scientists often find themselves properly running into problems of “values,” ethics, and an overall metaphysical worldview. The sciences, too, operate with foundational, yet undemonstrated faith assumptions about reality and our rational perceptions of it.87 Just as in theology, so also in the sciences, mystery about reality will undoubtedly always remain contested. If there is no longer any mystery to reality, then neither the sciences nor theology would be necessary. Yet “ultimate” questions will continue to haunt all academic disciplines. In view of these connections and commonalities between theology and the sciences, the “nonrelational coexistence” of theology and the sciences is neither accurate nor helpful.88 Barbour’s model of dialogue opens up a more constructive relationship between science and theology than does either the model of conflict or independence. Dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians may center on the presuppositions required for science to take place, or it may focus on similarities between the methods used in science and in theology, or it may explore the concepts in one discipline from those in the other. For example, historians of science continue to examine how the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation (and the presuppositions that are attached to that doctrine) might have contributed to the rise of modern science. We have already identified Karl Jaspers’s notion of “limit situations,” which has been fruitful in conversations between scientists and theologians. Catholic theologian David Tracy identifies two basic limit situations in the sciences: (1) ethical issues that cannot be directly answered using scientific methods and presuppositions

85. Gould, Rocks of Ages, 175. 86. Langdon Gilkey, Creationism on Trial (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 49–52; 108–13. 87. On this point, cf. Langdon Gilkey, Religion and the Scientific Future (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1970). 88. Pannenberg, “God and Nature,” in Toward a Theology of Nature, 51.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

and (2) the intelligibility of the universe that requires an ultimate, transcendent rational basis. Similarly, the Scottish theologian Thomas Torrance (1913–2007) observed that the sciences often raise fundamental questions that the sciences are unable to answer through their own methods and terms.89 Science has discovered order in nature that is both intelligible and contingent (the universe’s laws and initial conditions were not necessary), and this combination prompts scientists to seek for new and unexpected forms of intelligible order. Theologians, for their part, will seek to explain what it means to say that God is the Creator of the contingent, intelligible order of the universe. For that matter, why is there a universe at all? And why is it the way that it is? Dialogue between theologians and scientists also takes place with respect to particular concepts, analogies, and models that are used in both disciplines. Scientific data are theory-laden, not theory-free. Presuppositions and personal judgment always guide which data are selected, reported, and interpreted. Moreover, scientists make use of models, metaphors, and analogies (using their creative imaginations!) to make sense of the data they are interpreting. Such models are particularly necessary when one is trying to understand phenomena that are not directly observable (especially in astronomy as well as in quantum physics). Clearly, theology also entails the use of metaphorical and analogical language for the sake of understanding matters that are also not directly observable. Other matters under discussion between science and theology include additional methodological parallels (e.g., how both science and theology seek to interpret human experience), the status of the observer (e.g., how the social location, personal involvement, and the perspective of the individual scholarly researcher impacts that which is investigated), and conceptual parallels (e.g., how God’s activity in the world could be thought of in terms of the communication of information).90 Barbour’s final model, integration, is more difficult to achieve, for it entails revisioning traditional theological ideas in a more comprehensive and systematic way than what typically takes place through dialogue alone. Barbour identifies three distinct versions of integration. In natural theology, theologians seek to infer the reality of God from the evidence of design in nature (or at least to show that God’s reality is consistent with such evidence in nature). In a theology of nature, the principal sources of theology lie beyond science, but scientific knowledge is used to revise certain doctrines (e.g., theological anthropology). In a systematic synthesis, both science and theology contribute to an inclusive metaphysics, for example, process theology. 89. See Thomas F. Torrance, Christian Theology and Scientific Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981); Thomas F. Torrance, Reality and Evangelical Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982); and Thomas F. Torrance, Ground and Grammar of Theology: Consonance between Theology and Science (London: Continuum, 2005). 90. Cf. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, 26–7.

585

586

Fundamental Theology

In varying ways, those who follow the models of dialogue and integration (which Ted Peters calls “convergence”) allow the sciences to operate as if God is not a given in nature, but they then seek to identify areas of agreement or convergence between theology and the sciences. For those involved in the science/theology dialogue or who seek to integrate the two disciplines, theology does not appeal to God as an explanation for our gaps in scientific knowledge, nor does it appeal to biblical authority or church tradition to trump well-established scientific theories and conclusions. Instead, theology seeks to show a correspondence between what the sciences tell us about nature (including human beings) and what Christian theology affirms when it speaks about nature as God’s creation and about human beings created in “the image of God.” These latter two models invite positive, cooperative contributions from scholars in both theology and the sciences. A key attribute of both dialogue and integration is for theologians and scientists to seek to remain open to insights from both sets of disciplines. For example, scientific advances in physics and astronomy regarding Big-Bang cosmology have raised questions about the reality of God as the transcendent origin of the cosmos. Likewise, scientific advances in chemistry, biology, and genetics regarding evolutionary theory have led theologians to articulate versions of theistic evolution. In such theological understandings of evolution, the basic natural data and theory of evolution are affirmed, but within a theistic framework. Those who defend theistic evolution usually stress the character of God’s creation as an ongoing creation that produces novelty. Philosophical and metaphysical reflection on knowledge from the natural sciences, especially regarding evolutionary theory, have also led to questions about God’s relation to suffering, animal extinction, and the problem of natural evil. These and other issues remain in the forefront of discussions among theologians and scientists today. The global ecological crisis has intensified efforts to bridge scientific knowledge regarding climate change and religious, ethical reflection on the world as God’s creation, and on the nature and place of human beings within God’s creation. This same crisis raises questions about the economic forces that tend to transform all aspects of human life into marketable commodities. It also forces people to think about potential ways of reforming human communities to be sustainable, more humane, and responsible for the future of the planet as a whole. As a part of that discussion Christian theology invites people to think about the promise of God’s new creation that they believe has been inaugurated in Jesus and on ways in which the vision of that future can positively impact hopeful, responsible action in view of serious global environmental problems, which have been exacerbated both by some advances in science and technology and by wrong notions about God, human beings, and the future.91 91. Among the first modern American theologians to focus special attention on issues in ecology and faith was the Lutheran professor Joseph Sittler (1904–87). See Joseph Sittler, The Ecology of Faith (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961); Joseph Sittler, Care of the Earth and Other University Sermons

Christian Theology and the Sciences

Christianity and the ecological crisis Since the famous thesis of the Christian historian Lynn White Jr. (1907–87) continues to generate discussion about the role that Christianity has played in causing the environmental crisis, we should briefly examine it.92 White argued that because Christian theology emphasizes both divine and human transcendence over nature, “Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.”93 In line with other historians of science, White held that because Christianity was largely responsible for the rise of modern science and technology, and because it has sanctioned a view toward nature that has encouraged humans to exercise “dominion” (Gen. 1.28) over nature, Christianity is responsible for the current degradation of the planet. He summarized his argument as follows: We would seem to be heading toward conclusions unpalatable to many Christians. Since both science and technology are blessed words in our contemporary vocabulary, some may be happy at the notions, first, that viewed historically, modern science is an extrapolation of natural theology and, second, that modern technology is at least partly to be explained as an Occidental, voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man’s transcendence of, and rightful mastery over, nature. But, as we now recognize, somewhat over a century ago, science and technology—hitherto quite separate activities—joined to give mankind powers which, to judge by many of the ecologic effects, are out of control. If so, Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.94

Since the publication of White’s article, other historians of science have called into question many of his assertions and theological judgments.95 White’s description of biblical teaching is particularly problematic, since what he presented was quite selective and highly distorted. Biblical scholars note that the meaning of the Hebrew word “dominion” (rādā) in Gen. 1.26-28 does not sanction the domination and exploitation of the earth. One must take into account what this term means elsewhere in the biblical canon (e.g., in Ps. 72, where the king is to exercise dominion over his subjects by executing justice for them, especially toward the oppressed, helping

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964); and Joseph Sittler, Evocations of Grace: The Writings of Joseph Sittler on Ecology, Theology, and Ethics, ed. Steve Bouma-Prediger and Peter Bakken (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). See also H. Paul Santmire, Brother Earth: Nature, God, and Ecology (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1970); and H. Paul Santmire, The Travail of Nature (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Santmire (b. 1935) is a Lutheran pastor, activist, and “ecotheologian” who has written many books dealing with ecology and theology. 92. Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155 (March 10, 1967): 1203–7. 93. Ibid, 1205. 94. Ibid., 1206 (emphasis in original). 95. For the points in this paragraph, cf. the data and analysis in Steven Bouma-Prediger, For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 63–80.

587

588

Fundamental Theology

the poor, and embodying righteousness). “The proper exercise of dominion yields shalom—the flourishing of all creation.”96 Humans exercise dominion over creation only through service of creation, by serving the other (cf. Mk 10.41-45). To quote the American author Wendell Barry (b. 1934): God made the world because He wanted it made. He thinks the world is good, and He loves it. It is His world; He has never relinquished title to it. And He has never revoked the conditions, bearing on His gift to us of the use of it, that oblige us to take excellent care of it. If God loves the world, then how might any person of faith be excused for not loving it or justified in destroying it?97

Moreover, there appear to be many causes of the current ecological crisis, not merely the influence of wrong and harmful forms of Christian theology. The work of Carolyn Merchant and Clarence Glacken, for example, shows that no one cause can be blamed for the degradation of the earth’s environment.98 They demonstrate that ecological decline, past and present, has many and varied causes. Furthermore, ecological damage is not unique to Christian-influenced cultures. Non-Christian societies have also caused great harm to their ecosystems. “Ecological degradation is no respecter of religions. It predates Christianity and can be found in places where Christianity has asserted little or no influence.”99 Finally, we must question whether science and technology are fully to blame for the environmental crisis we are facing, as some have come to believe. While science and technology have certainly played a significant role—as have various religious beliefs—other factors, such as economic ones, also seem to be important if not even more so. In any case, White was correct to note near the end of his essay that we need “an alternative Christian view.” He thought that “since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.”100 He held up Francis of Assisi as the Christian example we should follow.101 As even White himself acknowledged, if one looks closely and carefully enough, there are elements of earth-affirming ecological concern in the Christian tradition.102 96. Ibid., 64. 97. Wendell Barry, What Are People For? (New York: North Point, 1990), 98. 98. Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980); and Clarence Glacken, Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967). 99. Bouma-Prediger, For the Beauty of the Earth, 67. 100. White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” 1207. 101. It is significant that when Jorge Mario Bergoglio (b. 1936) was elected pope in 2013, he took the name of Francis. On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis I promulgated his initial own encyclical, Laudato Si’, which is about the need to care properly for the planet. 102. In addition to Bouma-Prediger’s work (cited earlier), see Daniel L. Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler, and A. J. Swoboda, Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology: Foundations in Scripture, Theology, History, and Praxis (Grand

Christian Theology and the Sciences

Given the complexity of the universe and the serious global, environmental, and technological challenges we collectively face, we need to utilize multiple traditions of human inquiry in our effort to understand reality and to enact responsible courses of action. As the British philosopher Mary Midgley (1919–2018), the theologian Alister McGrath, and many other thinkers have argued, we should make use of various angles of approach to reality and the issues we face “and then try to integrate these multiple insights into a grander vision of our world.”103 That is also what Pope Francis calls for in his penetrating encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’.104

Leading figures To close this chapter, we will take note of just a few of the more important Christian thinkers who have followed the approach of seeking convergence between what the sciences tell us about reality and what theology teaches about God and creation. Arthur Peacocke (1924–2006), who was a British biochemist and Christian theologian, argued that theology “needs to be consonant and coherent with, though far from being derived from, scientific perspectives on the world.”105 He was particularly interested in how chance and law work together in cosmology, quantum mechanics, nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and biological evolution. He analyzed the evolution of distinctive forms of behavior at higher levels of complexity in the complex hierarchy of organic life and intelligence. Peacocke articulated a form of “panentheism,” in which the all-knowing God comprises the whole world. However, since God is greater than the world, “God could cause particular events and patterns of events to occur which express God’s intentions. These would then be the result of ‘special divine action’ as distinct from the divine holding in existence of allthat-is, and would not otherwise have happened had God not so intended.”106 While Rapids: Baker, 2014); and Kiara A. Jorgenson and Alan G. Padgett, eds., Ecotheology: A Christian Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020). 103. McGrath, “Afterword,” Science and the Doctrine of Creation, 241. 104. Pope Francis I, Laudato Si’: Care for Our Common Home (May 24, 2015). 105. Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), 10. See also his earlier work, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979); and his essay, “A Naturalistic Christian Faith for the Twenty-first Century: An Essay in Interpretation,” in All That Is, ed. Philip Clayton (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 3–56. Before his death, Peacocke taught at Cambridge and Oxford universities and was active within the Society of Ordained Scientists. For a good overview of his life and work, see Taede A. Smedes, “Arthur Peacocke,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, 589–99. 106. Arthur Peacocke, “Emergent Realities with Causal Efficacy: Some Philosophical and Theological Applications,” in Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons, ed. Nancey Murphy and William Stoeger (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 278–9.

589

590

Fundamental Theology

Peacocke maintained that God’s conformity with the laws of nature was not thereby undermined, he also held that within the laws of nature there is an openness for God’s ongoing action. While God normally works through natural means, God also interacts with the world in other ways. John Polkinghorne (1930–2021), who was a mathematician, physicist, and Christian theologian, has written broadly in the area of science and theology, addressing such topics as the nature of scientific and theological reasoning, quantum theory, cosmology, time, divine action, theological anthropology, and natural theology. In general, he sought to show the compatibility between scientific truths about nature and Christian theological affirmations and faith commitments regarding God the Creator and Redeemer. In Polkinghorne’s view, both scientific reasoning and Christian faith seek truth and not illusion. Although faith “goes beyond what is demonstrable … it is capable of rational motivation. Christians do not have to close their minds, nor are they faced with the dilemma of having to choose between ancient faith and modern knowledge. They can hold both together.”107 Obviously that means that the Christian doctrine of creation must accept what the sciences tell us about the origin of the universe from the Big Bang and the evolution of life on the planet. But likewise, the sciences ought to remain open to Christian theological insights about metaphysics, the reality of God, the nature of God’s ongoing involvement in creation, the origin of life, the nature of human life, human consciousness, moral awareness, and the nature of faith commitments in the sciences and theology.108 Polkinghorne made use of the biblical teaching about humans created in the “image of God” to make sense of the amazing human capacity to make sense of the universe. According to Polkinghorne, the Christian teaching about creation affirms a basic “congruence between our minds and the universe, between the rationality experienced within and the rationality observed without.”109 Robert John Russell (b. 1946), who has advanced degrees in theology and physics and is the founder and former director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS, Berkeley, California), has written extensively on four main topics: (1) the Big Bang and the finitude of time; (2) quantum mechanics and divine action; (3) order, disorder, and the problem of evil; and (4) the future of the universe and eschatology. Throughout his long career, he brought many scientists and theologians together for dialogue at the CTNS. His aim was to further “creative 107. John Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 5. Cf. John Polkinghorne, Science & Theology: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 1998). Polkinghorne taught mathematical physics at Cambridge University and was a Fellow of the Royal Society. For a good overview of his life and work, see Christopher C. Knight, “John Polkinghorne,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, 622–31. 108. Cf. Willem B. Drees, Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1990). 109. John Polkinghorne, Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding (London: SPCK, 1988), 20–1.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

mutual interaction” between the sciences and Christian theology. Toward this end, he received significant funding from the John Templeton Foundation to support programming in this field of inquiry.110 Since 1981, CTNS has held numerous conferences, workshops, and public lectures, and it has helped many professors to develop science/theology courses at colleges, universities, and seminaries.111 Among Russell’s contributions to the dialogue between the sciences and theology is his theory about Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action or NIODA.112 As a way of avoiding appeals to divine action that violate the laws of nature, Russell has argued that God acts at the subatomic level within the framework of quantum indeterminacy. God can bring about a multiplicity of possibilities without circumventing the laws of quantum physics. If God determines the course of the electron, then God breaks no law of nature. Yet, God still acts ubiquitously, creatively, and providentially within the atom.113 Russell’s colleague at the CTNS, Lutheran theologian Ted Peters (b. 1941),

110. The John Templeton Foundation, which Sir John Marks Templeton Sr. (1912–2008) founded in 1987, has contributed approximately 1 billion dollars to programs and institutions that support dialogue about religion and science. The annual Templeton Prize (1.1 million British pounds sterling) has been awarded to world leaders and internationally recognized scientists who have made important discoveries that have yielded new insights about religion. See https://www.tem​plet​onpr​ize.org/ (accessed July 31, 2023). 111. Beyond universities where such interdisciplinary dialogue also takes place, other important international institutions that further conversation between scientists and theologians include, for example, the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, the Zygon Center for Religion and Science, the International Society for Science & Religion, the Karl Heim Society to Further a Biblical-Christian Orientation in a Scientific-Technological World, the Religion and Science Network Germany, the Philadelphia Center on Religion and Science, the American Scientific Affiliation, the Center for Religion and the Biosciences, the Victoria Institute, the Gifford Lectures that take place annually in Scotland, and BioLogos. 112. Robert John Russell, Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 117. See also Robert John Russell, Time in Eternity: Pannenberg, Physics, and Eschatology in Creative Mutual Interaction (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012). 113. Some critics of Russell’s and Polkinghorne’s understandings of divine action have pointed out that God would still be violating the laws of quantum mechanics if God were intervening to determine the quantum outcomes. While Russell claims that in his model God does not “intervene,” God does in fact intervene in the causal structure of the world. If God determines the course of the electron, how is that not circumventing the laws of quantum physics? See Lydia Jaeger, “Against Physicalism-Plus-God: How Creation Accounts for Divine Action in Nature’s World,” Faith and Philosophy 29, 3 (2012): 295–312. “On Russell’s view, does God determine the outcomes of all quantum events or just some of them? If the former, then how would we escape the implication that God completely determines every event?” If the latter, then does not this occasional intervention imply as its correlative a theory of God’s ordinary absence, that is, “a form of Deism?” (Stump, Science and Christianity, 128). Following Jaeger, Stump starts with the duality of Creator and creation. The created order is entirely dependent upon God’s continuous gracious action, and the laws of nature are pictured as a description of God’s continuous faithful action to bring about his will. Despite the fact that both physics and theology can speak about God’s providential action does not mean they are the same (or that they can be

591

592

Fundamental Theology

has written and edited several important works on topics in science and religion, including theological anthropology, human genetics, human evolution, bioethics, and artificial intelligence.114 Still another scholar deeply involved with the CTNS, who has published widely in the areas of science and theology, is the Christian philosopher and theologian Nancey Murphy (b. 1951). An ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren, she has written numerous publications dealing with such subjects as the efficacy of prayer, cosmology and ethics, atheistic naturalism, scientific methodology, theological anthropology, and divine action.115 Murphy and George Ellis have argued that within the hierarchy of scientific disciplines (physics-chemistry-biology-ecology-sociology), each discipline encounters questions or problems (“boundary questions”) that the field itself cannot address. Some of these limiting questions are methodological, others are metaphysical, while still others are more directly ethical. Such questions can only be answered by moving to another level of discourse. Murphy and Ellis state: Modern thinkers emphasized the search downward in the hierarchy of the sciences (reductionism). We emphasize the search upward. The highest level of understanding is the theological. We claim (1) that certain aspects of reality require the context of a vision of the purpose of the whole in order to be fully intelligible, and (2) that the context of the whole, most adequately addressed theologically, provides an intellectual “bridge” whereby the natural sciences and the human sciences (including ethics) mutually illumine one another.116

Chapter 5 has already drawn attention to the respective work of the philosopher Richard Swinburne and the scientist Francis Collins, but they should be mentioned here as well. Collins was awarded the 2020 Templeton Prize for achievement in science and religion. In his acceptance speech he gave eloquent testimony about the reduced to the other). Rather, there are different levels of reality, “and these cannot be reduced to each other” (Stump, Science and Christianity, 128). 114. See, for example, Ted Peters, Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom (New York: Routledge, 1997); and Ted Peters, ed., Science and Theology: The New Consonance (New York: Routledge, 2019). For many decades, Peters has taught systematic theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary and in the Graduate Theological Union. For an overview of his work, see his faculty webpage: https://www.gtu.edu/facu​lty/ted-f-pet​ers (accessed May 27, 2023). 115. See, for example, Nancey Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990); and Nancey Murphy, Reconciling Science and Religion: A Radical Reformation Perspective (Oakland, Ca: Pandora, 1997). She teaches philosophy and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. For an overview of her work, see her faculty webpage: https://www.ful​ler.edu/facu​lty/nan​cey-mur​phy/ (accessed May 27, 2023). 116. Nancey Murphy and George F. R. Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 219–20. See also Nancey Murphy, “Reductionism and Emergence: A Critical Perspective,” in the book she coedited with Christopher C. Knight, Human Identity at the Intersection of Science, Technology, and Religion (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010), 79–96.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

harmony that he finds between his Christian faith and his work as a scientist.117 We could also draw attention to other Christians who are scientists and who see a deep connection between their faith and their scientific investigations, such as Jennifer Wiseman, who is the Senior Project Scientist on the Hubble Space Telescope. She also served as the director for the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s program, “Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion.”118 In addition, she serves on the board of BioLogos, an organization founded by Francis Collins that seeks harmony between science and Christian faith.119 John Haught (b. 1942), a Roman Catholic systematic theologian, has written extensively on cosmology and biological evolution.120 Like Barbour, he has been guided by process metaphysics and makes use of three models (“conflict,” “contrast,” and “convergence”) to describe differing approaches to certain basic questions in science and theology: Is evolution compatible with Christian faith in God the Creator? Does science rule out a personal God? Do miracles really happen? Can science explain intelligence? Does the universe have a purpose? In his work, Haught seeks to show that basic scientific theories can be understood within a theistic framework, but that a restrictive or reductive naturalism is a worldview that is open to significant criticism. For example, the issue of “death” in evolutionary biology is one that Christian theology needs to address very carefully: Unlike scientific naturalism, it is the task of Christian theology to make clear that death has no intelligible place in the total—and dramatically speaking, that means the “final”—scheme of things. It is theologically inappropriate to look for a rationally acceptable place for death in God’s creation. Doing so would give death a legitimacy that might lead us to tolerate and even justify it here and now rather than taking it as an evil to be fought against and overcome. It is not the job of theology to justify death by situating it solely within the context of a purely naturalistic understanding of the universe. Instead, theology asks whether the naturalistic point of view as such is intelligible. It is not.”121

117. Francis Collins, “In Praise of Harmony,” https://www.tem​plet​onpr​ize.org/laure​ate-sub/addr​ess-by-drfran​cis-s-coll​ins/ (accessed June 2, 2023). 118. AAAS, “Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion,” https://www.aaas.org/progr​ams/dialo​gue-scie​nceeth​ics-and-relig​ion (accessed June 2, 2023). 119. BioLogos, https://biolo​gos.org/ (accessed June 2, 2023). 120. See, for example, John Haught, Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2010); John Haught, Science and Faith: A New Introduction (New York: Paulist, 2012); and John Haught, The New Cosmic Story: Inside Our Awakening Universe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017). Haught is Professor Emeritus of Theology at Georgetown University. For an overview of his work, see his faculty webpage: https://gufac​ulty​360.geo​rget​own.edu/s/cont​act/003​3600​0014​ TkWY​AA0/john-hau​ght (accessed May 27, 2023). 121. Haught, Making Sense of Evolution, 101.

593

594

Fundamental Theology

Haught points out that evolutionary naturalism cannot give a reasonable answer to such questions as why there is anything at all rather than nothing, or why the universe is intelligible at all, or why the universe entails contingency, law, and time, which give it “a narrative character” that in turn allows life to evolve as it does. Haught is unsatisfied with the answer that some naturalists give, namely, “this is just the way things happen to be.” Such a response is unsatisfactory since it amounts to saying that our search for understanding will ultimately end up being absurd. “Theology, on the other hand, because of its insistence that nature must be ultimately rooted in a transcendent ground of intelligibility, goodness, beauty, and truth, turns out to be a much better friend and supporter of scientific inquiry than evolutionary naturalism could ever be.”122 Theology ought to be critical of naturalism since the latter too easily makes friends with death. While Haught in no way challenges the basic theory of evolution, he is quite critical of evolutionary naturalism as an atheistic worldview. Christian theology points to the hope of redemption from death, the final victory over death.123 Philip Hefner (b. 1932), a Lutheran theologian and the former director of the Zygon Center for Religion and Science, has also sought to make sense of evolutionary biology from within a Christian theological perspective.124 In his work, he sets forth his understanding of “the human” as “the created co-creator.” He points out that “the model of biocultural evolution requires this concept of genes and culture as two streams of information that comprise the human being.”125 Moreover, according to Hefner, the human being is both thoroughly conditioned and free. On the one hand, human beings are determined by the evolutionary process that dates back to the origins of the universe. On the other hand, humans also exercise freedom, which manifests itself in three basic ways: (1) in the exploration of one’s environment, (2) in self-conscious reflections about moral choices, and (3) in the need to care for others individually and for society as a whole. But Hefner then proceeds to set forth his understanding of theological anthropology: Human beings are God’s created co-creators whose purpose is to be the agency, acting in freedom, to birth the future that is most wholesome for the nature that has birthed us—the nature that is not only our own genetic heritage, but also the entire human 122. Ibid., 101. 123. For other theological works that address the problem of sin, evil, and death within the context of evolutionary biology, see Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012); Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves, eds., Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin: Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014); and William T. Cavanaugh and James K. A. Smith, eds., Evolution and the Fall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). 124. Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Hefner is professor emeritus of systematic theology at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago. 125. Ibid., 29.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

community and the evolutionary and ecological reality in which and to which we belong. Exercising this agency is said to be God’s will for humans.126

Earlier in the book, Hefner unfolds a robust doctrine of original sin, which, according to his summary, is an inherent factor in stirring human self-awareness, a condition pertaining to our very origin as persons, something that seems to be inherited in some fashion, a condition that is associated with our freedom and marked by a sense of guilt and estrangement, thus requiring the gift of divine grace.127 The Lutheran systematic theologian Antje Jackelèn (b. 1955), the archbishop of the Church of Sweden, has also made significant contributions to the dialogue between Christian theology and the natural sciences. Her revised doctoral dissertation (which she completed at the University of Lund, Sweden) explores the nature of time as both relationally determined and eschatologically conditioned.128 Another very important scholar in the dialogue between the sciences and theology is Celia Deane-Drummond (b. 1956), who has focused primarily on issues in biology. After earning a PhD in plant physiology, she earned another PhD in theology. Grounded in the Roman Catholic theological tradition, she too has written extensively on the interface between theology and the natural sciences. In her work, Eco-Theology, she makes clear that she does not think the sciences alone can solve the environmental crisis.129 We must recover a proper theological understanding of the relationship between God, humanity, and our environment. An aspect of this eco-theology is understanding that we humans are both apart from nature as well as part of nature. Deane-Drummond makes use of Thomas Aquinas’s virtue ethics as a fruitful resource for Christian care of the world in which God has placed us. Finally, we should point once again to the work of Northern Irish Anglican theologian Alister McGrath (b. 1953), one of the most prolific Christian theologians writing today. An atheist as a teenager, McGrath gradually moved toward theism and then adopted the Christian faith as a student at Oxford University, where he studied molecular biophysics. While he initially thought he needed to be an atheist in order to be a good scientist, over time he came to reject that view. He turned away from atheism as he thought more carefully and deeply about its “intellectual 126. Ibid., 264. 127. Ibid., 129–33. 128. Antje Jackelèn, Time and Eternity: The Concept of Time in Church, Science, and Theology (Philadelphia: Templeton, 2010). She also has been an adjunct professor of systematic theology at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago. 129. Celia Deane-Drummond, Eco-Theology (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2008); and Celia DeaneDrummond, Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). Deane-Drummond is the Senior Research Fellow in theology at Campion Hall, the University of Oxford. For a list of her works, see her faculty webpage: https://www.theol​ogy.ox.ac.uk/peo​ple/profes​sor-celia-deane-drumm​ond (accessed May 27, 2023).

595

596

Fundamental Theology

vulnerability and existential bleakness.”130 After earning a PhD in chemistry, he then earned a doctorate in Christian theology. For the past forty years, McGrath has written extensively in the area of science and Christian theology. In his magisterial three-volume work, Scientific Theology, which was influenced by the ideas of Thomas Torrance, he explores the methodological parallels between the natural sciences and Christian theology.131 His best-selling work, however, is a small book that seeks to refute the atheism of Richard Dawkins.132 More recently, he has written about the possibilities of articulating a Christian natural theology in relation to both the finetuning in the laws of nature and the necessary conditions for biological evolution.133 For McGrath, the point of natural theology is no longer to demonstrate that God is the Creator of the universe. Rather, in light of the Christian faith in the triune God, “an authentic natural theology is concerned with the discernment of the meaning of life, as much as the demonstration of rationality in faith.”134 Many dozens of other scholars could be mentioned here, but the individuals I have highlighted are sufficient to show the beginning student of Christian theology that this field of theological and scientific inquiry is rich and fruitful. While a few of the aforementioned thinkers use some form of process metaphysics (e.g., Haught), the works of Schlink, Pannenberg, Swinburne, and others indicate that such a philosophical concept of God need not be adopted. In any case, all of the individuals mentioned here show ways in which it is possible to hold together scientific and Christian insights and experiences. These scholars provide compelling examples of individuals who have shown how scientific knowledge and theological understandings can relate to one another. Plainly, having faith in God does not mean that one must close one’s eyes to scientific understandings. It is possible to integrate faith and science. Such an integration ought to be a goal for anyone who believes in the unity of knowledge. Given that theology deals with God as the source, ground, and sustainer of everything, it ought to be “the great integrating discipline.”135

130. McGrath, “Afterword,” Science and the Doctrine of Creation, 242. 131. Alister E. McGrath, Scientific Theology, 3 vols (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001–3). 132. Alister E. McGrath, Dawkins’ God: From the Selfish Gene to the God Delusion, 2nd edn (Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2015). 133. Alister E. McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009); Alister E. McGrath, Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology (Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2011); and Alister E. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology: The 2009 Gifford Lectures (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2009). 134. McGrath, Darwinism and the Divine, 289. McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford. For more information about his life and work, visit his personal webpage: http://ali​ster​mcgr​ath.wee​bly.com/ (accessed May 27, 2023). 135. Polkinghorne, “God’s Action in the World,” 307.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

Questions for review and discussion













1. How does one’s understanding of God shape one’s perceptions about the natural sciences? How do metaphysical assumptions manifest themselves in supposedly scientific statements about the meaning of reality as a totality? 2. What difference, if any, does Christian faith make to the study of chemistry, physics, paleontology, and biology? 3. What is the difference between “scientism” and “scientific imperialism?” Why is the author critical of these positions? 4. What is the difference between “creationism” and “theistic evolution?” Why is the author critical of creationism? Do you agree or disagree with this criticism? Why? 5. What is “Intelligent Design Theory?” Why is the author critical of ID theory? Do you agree with this criticism? Why or why not? 6. Is there an important difference between appealing to “God” as the divine cause for some unknown mystery or complexity in nature and inferring that there is a Creator of the universe because of the presence of complexity and apparent design in nature? 7. Do you think that the theory of evolution is inherently “atheistic”, or do you think a Christian could accept evolution within a theistic framework (theistic evolution)? 8. Which of Barbour’s four models makes the best sense to you? Why? Why is the author critical of the so-called “two-languages theory” for discussing the relation between science and theology? Why have some supported this theory? Do you think science and religion “speak” different languages? Do you think there can be a “consonance” or “integration” between science and Christian theology? What would be necessary for that to occur? 9. At various points, the chapter points out some interesting details in nature that some theologians have sought to relate to the Christian doctrine of creation. Among these details is the apparent “fine-tuning” in the laws of nature. What do you make of this “fine-tuning?” Is it at all theologically significant? 10. The chapter ends by identifying several scholars who have sought to relate Christian theology to the natural sciences. What is your assessment of their efforts to do this kind of integration?

597

598

Fundamental Theology

Suggestions for further reading Reference literature For a general orientation to the relationship of Christian theology with the sciences: Willem Dress, “Science,” Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. Bowden, 1090–8. Rainer Enskat, “Science,” RPP, 11.534–7. Dirk Evers, Nancey Murphy, George Ellis, and Antje Jackelé, “Natural Sciences,” RPP, 9.45–55. Stanley L. Jaki, “Science and Religion,” ER, 13.121–33. Nancey Murphy, “Natural Science,” OHST, 543–60. Alan Padgett, “Science and Theology,” EC, 4.873–9.

Christian theology and the sciences Ian Barbour, Ethics in an Age of Technology: The Gifford Lectures 1989–1991, vol. 2 (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993). [This volume examines various perspectives on technology and its uses, human values, environmental values, as well as ethical issues relating to energy consumption, agriculture, and computing.] Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). [Barbour’s classic text that set the basic lines of conversation in the contemporary dialogue between Christian theology and the natural sciences. Though dated, it is still worth reading for the historical and theoretical perspectives it presents.] Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures 1989–1991, vol. 1 (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990). [This volume explores Barbour’s four models of relating science and religion, the role of models and paradigms in science and theology, religion and various scientific theories (quantum physics, the Big Bang, evolution), and philosophical and theological reflections on human nature and nonhuman nature.] Ian Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997). [A very good summary of past and recent efforts to bridge theology and the natural sciences. Barbour, who earned advanced degrees in both physics and Christian theology, was a leading contributor to bridgebuilding between the sciences and theology.] Geoffrey H. Fulkerson and Joel Thomas Chopp, eds., Science and the Doctrine of Creation: The Approaches of Ten Modern Theologians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2021). [An excellent set of essays on the views of ten modern theologians toward the natural sciences. Included are Bultmann, Barth, Torrance, Moltmann, Pannenberg, and Jenson.] John Haught, Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2010). [One need not agree with Haught’s use of process metaphysics to find many of his theological insights illuminating.

Christian Theology and the Sciences

He shows how a Christian can find consonance between a process-theological understanding of Christian faith and modern evolutionary theory.] Philip Hefner, The Human Factor (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000). [A major theological analysis of human evolution by a leading North American Lutheran theologian of the past half century.] Alister McGrath, Science & Religion: A New Introduction, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010). [This is a good place for the college student to begin further exploration of the issues in science and theology.] John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990). [Controversial, critical analysis of the theological presuppositions within the social sciences and how those assumptions are at odds with Orthodox AngloCatholic theology.] George L. Murphy, The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003). [Engages the problems of natural theology and issues within the natural sciences that have theological import from the perspective of the suffering and death of Jesus. This is an excellent summary of a Lutheran theology of the cross in relation to matters of the natural sciences.] Nancey Murphy, Reconciling Science and Religion: A Radical Reformation Perspective (Oakland, CA: Pandora, 1997). [A brief, very readable argument for a positive, complementary understanding of “science” and “religion.” Murphy, who teaches at Fuller Seminary, is an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren. She has written widely in the area of science and Christian theology.] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis McDonagh (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976). [A significant effort to engage the natural sciences and the philosophy of science on the basis of Christian theology, “the science of God.”] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith, ed. Ted Peters (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). [Provides a good introduction to Pannenberg’s engagement with the natural sciences. Includes essays on questions that theologians have for scientists, creation and modern science, and contingency and natural law.] Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming—Natural, Divine, and Human (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993). [Peacocke’s process metaphysic is not persuasive to many, but his theological engagement with issues in biochemistry is stimulating.] Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennet, eds., Bridging Science and Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). [Contains essays by many of the leading figures in “science and religion.” Explores methodological issues in science and religion, specific topics in the science and theology (natural law and divine action, biological evolution, genetics, and the neurosciences), and interreligious perspectives on a host of other matters.] John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). [Provides a metaphysic that is contrary to the process one of Peacocke.

599

600

Fundamental Theology

Polkinghorne seeks to show how one can believe in God and accept what the natural sciences tell us about nature.] John Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). [This is a good way to see how this late great mathematician and physicist understood the basic theological affirmations in the Nicene Creed.] Murray Rae, Hilary Regan, and John Stenhouse, eds., Science and Theology: Questions at the Interface (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). [Each of the six sections of the book contains a principal essay by a leading scholar (e.g., Polkinghorne, Murphy) on a given theme (natural theology, the reality of God, scientific methodology, natural and divine truth, relativity, creation and divine action) and then two responses by other scholars.] W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman, eds., Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue (New York: Routledge, 1996). [A great resource that offers a collection of essays from a variety of perspectives on key topics within the broad field of natural science and religious studies/theology.] Hans Schwarz, Vying for Truth—Theology and the Natural Sciences from the 17th Century to the Present (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). [An excellent survey of key thinkers who have written about theology and the natural sciences. Schwarz’s book has significantly informed the historical overview I have provided in this chapter.] J. B. Stump, Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues (Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2017). [Another good college-level introduction to basic questions at the interface between science and Christian theology. Up-to-date bibliographies are found at the end of each chapter. Stump is the senior editor at BioLogos, an online organization that provides resources for this area of study.] J. B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). [The best one-volume reference work in the field of science and religion. The book includes essays on the history of the interaction between science and Christianity, methodology in science and theology, natural theology, cosmology, evolution, the human sciences, bioethics, the mind, theology, and several important Christian theologians.]

Additional online resources for the study of theology and the sciences BioLogos (https://biolo​gos.org/.) (accessed July 31, 2023). Center for the Study of Theology and the Natural Sciences (http://www.ctns.org/) (accessed July 31, 2023). The Vatican observatory (https://www.vat​ican​obse​rvat​ory.org/) (accessed July 31, 2023). Zygon Center for Religion and Science (http://zygo​ncen​ter.org/) (accessed July 31, 2023).

Postscript In the “Afterword” to the first edition of this book, American historian Martin Marty (b. 1928) repeatedly raised the question, “Where do we go from here?”1 That question remains the basic one at the end of this second edition as well. I hope that readers will follow my suggestions to explore the book’s theological issues further by studying the resources I have listed at the end of each chapter. I also hope that readers will recognize our ongoing need to revise and adjust our theological understandings as a result of further study of the classic sources in Christian theology as well as in the light of new knowledge and cultural developments. A great many questions are still unanswered, and the global problems we collectively face seem to be getting more and more complicated and existentially threatening as we move further and further into the twenty-first century. It is quite possible that readers have more questions now than they did when they started reading this book. If so, keep on studying! Continue to deepen your understanding. Get involved. Follow Luther’s recommendation: pray, struggle, and meditate. Join the ongoing theological conversation. Of course, human knowledge of God remains incomplete. While we have been granted some knowledge of the divine, God is ultimately (if not fully) incomprehensible. Still, the knowledge we have received is worth pondering, preserving, and deepening. In his “Afterword,” Marty drew attention to three Latin phrases that the historian and social philosopher Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy (1888–1973) used to describe the nature and purpose of universities.2 The university was born of the impulse summarized by the first phrase, “Credo ut intelligam” (“I believe in order to understand”). In other words, “Truth is divine and has been divinely revealed.” That fits with the motto of my university: “In luce tua videmus lucem” (“In your light we

1. Martin E. Marty, “Afterword,” in Matthew L. Becker, Fundamental Theology: A Protestant Perspective (Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2015), 453–61. 2. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, “Farewell to Descartes,” in I Am an Impure Thinker (Norwich, VT: Argo, 1970; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013), 1–19.

602

Fundamental Theology

see light”), a phrase from Jerome’s Latin translation of Ps. 36.9b. While that premise is foundational for the rise of modern universities, it did not always guide other impulses and subjects addressed in those same universities. In stepped Descartes and what he stood for: “Truth is pure and can be scientifically stated.” The Latin phrase here is “cogito ergo sum” (“I think/doubt, therefore I am”). However, given that RosenstockHuessy was writing after the First World War, when confidence in human reasoning and values had collapsed, he felt the need to add a third affirmation: “Truth is vital and must be socially represented—Respondeo etsi mutabor” (“I respond although I will be changed”).3 We cannot go back to the medieval university as it was in the centuries before Descartes, but we might well be able to follow Rosenstock-Huessy’s critique and urge for something to be added to the first two principles: Among men, in society, the vigorous identity asked of us by the “cogito ergo sum” tends to destroy the guiding imperative of the good life. We do not exist because we think. Man is the son of God and not brought into being by thinking. We are called into society by a mighty entreaty, “Who art thou, man, that I should care for thee?” And long before our intelligence can help us, the newborn individual survives the tremendous question by his naive faith in the love of his elders. We grow into society on faith, listening to all kinds of human imperatives. Later we stammer and stutter, nations and individuals alike, in the effort to justify our existence by responding to the call. We try to distinguish between the many tempting offers made to our senses and appetites by the world. We wish to follow the deepest question, the central call which goes straight to the heart, and promises our soul the lasting certainty of being inscribed in the book of life.4

If the first assertion, credo ut intelligam, is held to be the sole perspective within a college or university, then the emphasis will be strictly, ultimately on the theological, vertical dimension of learning and understanding. If the second assertion, cogito ergo sum—the motto of many who live and operate in today’s universities—is the guiding principle, then the focus is strictly on the mundane, horizontal dimension of learning and reflecting. The third assertion, respondeo etsi mutabor—RosenstockHuessy’s own elaboration—gives us a complementary vision for the type of inquiry I have tried to sketch in this book. The focus here has been on Christian academic theology and Christian traditions of theological reflection. I have contended that those traditions are worthy of careful scholarly study. I have tried to identify their more important features, to pass on what they convey, to reach into history to help the reader to see crucial thinkers and 3. Rosenstock-Huessy, “Farewell to Descartes,” 2. Marty noted that this third phrase has been the guiding principle of his own scholarly work and life. 4. Rosenstock-Huessy, “Farewell to Descartes,” 9ff. Rosenstock-Huessy’s “men” is easily translatable to “humans.”

Postscript

works and issues, but also to show how the Christian traditions of theology could be brought into relationship to other forms of knowing. Along the way, I hope the reader has recognized the truth in Rosenstock-Huessy’s third principle, namely, that there is a social context to learning. To quote again from Marty’s “Afterword”: The solitary scholar in a cell or on an island could, if texts were made available there, go far in treating on purely isolated terms something of an awareness of what the other disciplines have to offer, in challenge and enrichment. However and emphatically, we have universities and colleges (etymologically related to “reading together”) to help shape vivid, dynamic, and personal traditions.5

Marty also drew attention to G. K. Chesterton’s (1874–1936) observation, namely, that “if you have and want to keep a white fence, you will be busy re-whiting it. Mud, dirt, animal refuse, and erosion will work their effects. So it is with conserving, conservatism, or tradition,” as it will be when one is debating issues about the nature and purpose of colleges and universities and about the place of academic theology within them.6 One of my basic prayers today is that college students will cultivate a curiosity to read, to read books, good books, classic ones that have stood the test of time, including those writings near the center of what has been called the Western canon, as well as great books beyond that center and tradition.7 I fear that fewer and fewer students read today, or if they do read, they do not read much of anything substantive and worthwhile. And yet college libraries are full of exceptional works that bear witness to truth, goodness, and beauty, books and resources that are capable of enriching and encouraging people. Such works inspire people to adopt new and hopeful perspectives, they feed souls, and they motivate people for just ends. Like many other professors in the humanities, I am deeply troubled by the ongoing marginalization of the liberal arts in contemporary higher education. The liberal arts are not simply a shiny veneer on a university’s professional degrees. The liberal arts ought to be at the heart of a university’s mission, which, in part, is to liberate people from ignorance and prejudice, and to liberate them for leadership and service. The humanities are crucial to that endeavor. They can help to reveal problematic and laudatory aspects of our world and human beings, they can speak truth to our minds and souls, they can elicit empathy, point to justice, and shed light on realities that only artists and visionary writers can unveil. Of course, the Christian Bible is a library in itself, which I hope students will also explore more deeply, especially in view of the low level of biblical literacy among young people today. My prayer—to quote from an ancient collect—is that students 5. Marty, “Afterword,” 456–7. 6. Marty, “Afterword,” 461. 7. Cf. Harold Bloom, The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1994).

603

604

Fundamental Theology

will “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the biblical texts for their benefit, that they might even “embrace and ever hold fast” to the blessed hope of eternal life that is promised in the Scriptures.8 Christian theology is not the hubristic “queen” of the sciences, nor should it ever have been so conceived. It can, however, become a humble handmaiden, an aide, “a correlating ally” to the various fields of learning.9 Luther’s theology of the cross is crucial in this respect. Theologians cannot wallow in nostalgia for the “good old days” when theology supposedly ruled the roost, nor ought they grumble because they no longer “run the show” (which they never did, not even in medieval times). While no one knows precisely what lies ahead for Christian academic theology, the present signs indicate that we must continue to expect only partial answers and fragments of the truth. As important today as ever, we must find the right questions to ask and then engage in careful and faithful searching for truthful answers. The challenge for theologians today, both teachers and students, is to be intelligent, humble, respectful, open to dialogue, and true to the sources and norms that shape and guide their discipline. The aim of such theology remains the same as it has been for millennia: to know the living God more fully and truthfully.

8. The Collect for the Word, The Lutheran Hymnal (St. Louis: Concordia, 1941), 14. 9. Marty, “Afterword,” 460.

Glossary of Names

Lyman Abbott (1835–1922) American Congregationalist pastor, theologian, editor, and author. He supported progressive political causes and accepted Darwin’s explanation for the origin of species. He thus defended a form of theistic evolution. Peter Abelard (1079–1142/3) Professor of philosophy and theology at the University of Paris. He used logic and dialectic to set forth rational understandings of church teachings that sometimes conflicted with traditional positions. Julius Africanus (160–240) Christian historian. His dating of the birth of Jesus, though incorrect, led to the development of the standard Christian reckoning of time (BC/AD). He miscalculated the death of Herod the Great and thus was incorrect in fixing the probable year of Jesus’ birth. He was off by about four years. William P. Alston (1921–2009) American philosopher who specialized in the philosophy of language, epistemology, and the philosophy of religion. He was especially interested in the nature of religious experience. Founding editor of the journal Faith and Philosophy. Robert Alter (b. 1935) American professor of Hebrew and comparative literature. He has authored many important books on biblical narrative and poetry. Paul Althaus (1888–1966) Important German Lutheran theologian. In addition to writing on the theology of Martin Luther, Althaus also articulated a modern form of confessional Lutheran theology. Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109) Archbishop of Canterbury and the major figure in early medieval scholastic theology. He sought to provide a rational basis for the being of God (the so-called “ontological argument”) and a scholarly rationale for the incarnation of the divine Logos (apart from reference to biblical and patristic sources).

Individuals whose names are typically connected to a locale are normally alphabetized by first name (e.g., Ambrose of Milan), unless the locale is widely regarded as the family name (e.g., Nicolas von Zinzendorf). All others are alphabetized by their family name or common nickname (e.g., John Chrysostom).

606

Glossary of Names

Antony of Egypt (251–356) Christian hermit and leading influence on the development of Christian monasticism. Eugene d’Aquili (1940–98) Research psychiatrist who specialized in studying the brain scans of religious people. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224–74) Professor of philosophy and theology at the University of Paris. Member of the Dominican Order. He was the major theologian of the medieval period. He used Aristotelian philosophy to understand and explicate the content of revealed faith. His two main theological works are the Summa Theologiae (“summary of theology” for university students), which remained unfinished at his death and the Summa contra Gentiles (“summary against the non-Christians”), a defense of the truth of Christian faith over against Jewish and Muslim objections. Aristotle (384–322 BC) Greek philosopher. Student of Plato. Major influence on the development of Western medieval theology, especially the thought of Aquinas. Like Plato, Aristotle understood theology to be mainly criticism of Greek myths (“stories”). Arius (256–336) Priest in Alexandria, Egypt. He was condemned as a heretic for teaching and preaching that “there once was when the Logos was not” and “before the Logos was begotten he was not.” These statements were condemned at the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in AD 325. Arianism held that the Logos was the first creature of God and thus not fully divine or eternal as the Father. Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) Dutch Reformed theologian who later rejected Calvin’s teaching about predestination. Johann Arndt (1555–1621) German Lutheran pastor and theologian. He was a key forerunner of the spiritual movement that is called “Pietism.” Athanasius (c. 296–373) Bishop of Alexandria. Major defender of orthodox trinitarian theology over against Arianism. One of the major Eastern (Greek) theologians. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) Bishop of Hippo and the major Western (Latin) theologian. His ideas shaped theological discussions in the Western Church for more than a millennium, down to the Protestant Reformation. He wrote essays and books on all of the major theological topics, including especially the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature of sin and grace, and the theology of history. Averroes (1126–1198) Medieval Muslim philosopher and scientist. His commentaries on Aristotle influenced Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Christian theologians.

Glossary of Names

Avicenna (980–1037) Muslim philosopher and physician from Persia. Influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, Avicenna’s writings also influenced early medieval Christian theologians. Johann S. Bach (1685–1750) Lutheran composer and organist. Little appreciated in his lifetime, Bach has become one of the most celebrated creative geniuses. His oratorios, passions, and B-minor Mass are considered by many to be among the most beautiful sacred music ever created. Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–1988) Swiss Roman Catholic theologian. Influenced by the Eastern fathers, Augustine, Karl Barth, and the Swiss mystic Adrienne von Speyr, von Balthasar sought to broaden the basis of theology in relation to what is true, good, and beautiful. Ian Barbour (1923–2013) Physicist and Protestant theologian. Barbour helped to begin the modern dialogue between Christian theologians and scientists in the middle of the twentieth century. Over more than four decades he wrote major works in the area of science and Christian theology. He was awarded the Templeton Prize in 1999. James Barr (1924–2006) Scottish Old Testament scholar. He was a strong critic of conservative Evangelicalism. Wendell Barry (b. 1934) American novelist, poet, essayist, environmental activist. Many of Barry’s writings reflect Christian themes. Barry describes himself as “a marginal Christian.” Karl Barth (1886–1968) Swiss Reformed theologian. One of the two or three major Protestant theologians of the twentieth century. Educated within liberal Protestant theology, Barth came to criticize aspects of that tradition in favor of the revelation of the Word of God “from above.” His commentary on Romans, published shortly after the end of the First World War, emphasized the otherness of God and God’s judgment against human sin. His major work was the unfinished thirteen-volume Church Dogmatics, the most ambitious summary of Christian teaching since Johann Gerhard’s loci Theologici. Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379) Greek theologian and bishop of Caesarea. One of the three so-called “Cappadocian Fathers,” which also included his brother Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus. These theologians were particularly influential in their writings about the doctrine of the Trinity, especially on the role of the Holy Spirit. Bruno Bauer (1809–82) German philosopher and historian. He argued that the Gospel of Mark is a work of fiction on which all other written gospels are founded. Thus, in his view, Jesus was a fictional, non-historical character.

607

608

Glossary of Names

Walter Bauer (1877–1960) German theologian who set forth the thesis that heresy flourished in many regions of early Christianity before becoming supplanted by later orthodox positions. He was also the author of a Greek lexicon that has become a standard scholarly reference work. (See the entry for BDAG in the list of abbreviations.) Oswald Bayer (b. 1939) German Lutheran theologian. He has stressed the nature of the gospel as a divine promise to which humans are invited to respond in faith. Ernest Becker (1924–74) American cultural anthropologist. His most important work is The Denial of Death, which explores the human tendency to deny one’s mortality and the problems that this denial creates within human societies. Henry Ward Beecher (1813–87) American Congregationalist pastor and social reformer. He supported the abolition of American slavery. He supported other progressive political causes and accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution. Michael Behe (b. 1952) American biochemist. He is a leading proponent of “Intelligent Design Theory.” Peter Berger (1929–2017) Austrian-born American sociologist and Lutheran theologian. He wrote extensively on the process by which human beings create their understandings of reality through interaction with social institutions. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) Latin theologian and abbot of Clairvaux. His most important work is a series of sermons on the Song of Songs. In these sermons and in other writings he stressed that God should be loved simply and merely because God is God. Robert Bertram (1921–2003) American Lutheran theologian. His theology was deeply shaped by his engagement with Martin Luther’s 1535 commentary on Galatians and the need for contemporary preachers and theologians to distinguish properly God’s accusing law from God’s promising gospel. Gabriel Biel (c. 1420–1495) German medieval theologian. One of the last scholastic theologians. His theology of justification stressed that as long as one “did one’s best,” “to do what is in one’s power to do,” then God will grant his grace so that the individual will be able to do more good works. Bonaventure (c. 1217–1274) Franciscan professor of theology. His most important work was The Mind’s Road to God, in which he describes how God provides mystical illumination to the prayerful Christian. Like other medieval Latin theologians, he also wrote a commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences.

Glossary of Names

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) German Lutheran theologian. Influenced by Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer was very involved in the ecumenical movement. He later directed an illegal seminary of the Confessing Church, which opposed the Nazification of the German Protestant Church. He was executed by the Nazis for his participation in a conspiracy against Hitler. Marcus Borg (1942–2015) Professor of New Testament studies and a leading figure in the “Jesus Seminar.” Borg authored several books on the historical Jesus. Günther Bornkamm (1905–1990) Major German Protestant New Testament scholar. A student of Bultmann’s, he was a leading figure in the so-called “Second Quest” for the historical Jesus, which sought to overcome Bultmann’s skepticism about knowing much about the Jesus of history. Don Browning (1934–2010) American Protestant theologian. He was particularly interested in interdisciplinary study that brought together insights from Christian theology, psychology, and the social sciences. F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) Prolific Scottish biblical scholar. He was a strong critic of Bultmann’s approach to the NT. He sought to show important continuities between the OT and the NT. Emil Brunner (1889–1966) Swiss Reformed theologian. Like Karl Barth, Brunner was critical of liberal Protestant theology, but unlike Barth he thought that there is a human “point of contact” that allows human beings to respond to the general revelation of God. The latter then is the larger context for God’s saving revelation in Jesus Christ. Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) Major New Testament scholar and German Lutheran theologian. Along with Karl Barth and Paul Tillich, Bultmann is one of the most influential Protestant theologians of the twentieth century. An early supporter of Barth’s dialectical theology, Bultmann later developed his program of “de-mythologizing” the New Testament, which Barth criticized. John Calvin (1509–1564) French-born Swiss Reformer and theologian. His Institutes of the Christian Religion is a classic statement of Reformed Protestant theology. Cappadocians See the entries for Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. Catherine of Sienna (c. 1347–1380) Dominican theologian. All of her writings, mostly letters and prayers, stress the centrality of the crucified Christ and his blood, which she interpreted as the sign of God’s love for human beings.

609

610

Glossary of Names

Charlemagne (747–814) King of the Franks, king of the Lombards, and Holy Roman Emperor (after 800). He did much to unite Eastern and Western Europe under his rule. His reign spurred the so-called “Carolingian Renaissance,” a period of intense cultural and intellectual activity within the Western Church. Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) German Lutheran theologian. A student of Philip Melanchthon, he was a great defender of Luther’s teaching of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper. In addition to his classic work on the two natures of Christ, he wrote a lengthy critique of the decrees of the Council of Trent. G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) English author, philosopher, literary critic, and defender of Roman Catholic Christianity. He was the creator of the fictional priestdetective Father Brown. Rebecca Chopp (b. 1952) American theologian and academic administrator. She has written extensively about liberation and feminist theologies and issues of social justice. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) Bishop of Constantinople and major Eastern (Greek) theologian. He was especially well-known for his preaching (“Chrysostom” = “Golden mouth”) and personal holiness. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) Egyptian theologian. He was especially interested in cultivating a positive relationship between Greek pagan philosophy and Christian teaching. Clement of Rome (c. 35–99) Important bishop of Rome and the first so-called “Apostolic father.” His letter to the church at Corinth (“First Clement”) gives important clues about early Christian worship and church life. Francis Collins (b. 1950) American physician, chemist, and geneticist. He was the codirector of the Human Genome Project and served as the head of the National Institutes of Health. His book The Language of God sets forth his understanding of the compatibility between his Christian faith and modern scientific knowledge. He was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2020. Constantine I (272–337) First Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. His Edict of Milan (313) legalized the practice of the Christian religion within the empire. Lucas Cranach Sr. (1472–1553) German painter. He created visual art that supported Martin Luther’s reform efforts. Oscar Cullmann (1902–1999) French-born Lutheran theologian. He rehabilitated the idea of “salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte), first developed by Johannes von

Glossary of Names

Hofmann, as the key way of understanding the biblical view of time and history. Heilsgeschichte is a narrow stream of revelatory history in the middle of secular history that provides insight into the meaning of all history. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258) Bishop of Carthage and a leading Western (Latin) theologian. He wrote mainly about the unity of the Catholic Church and the role of bishops in maintaining that unity. Cyril of Alexandria (378–444) Bishop of Alexandria and a leading Eastern (Greek) theologian. He opposed Nestorius’ christology and wrote treatises that defended the two natures in Christ. Mary Daly (1928–2010) Self-described “radical Lesbian feminist,” Daly criticized patriarchal language and concepts in Christian theology. Her best-known work is Beyond God the Father. Paul C. Davies (b. 1946) English physicist. He has written extensively on cosmology and has contributed to the dialogue between science and Christian theology. Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) British evolutionary biologist and author. A professor at the University of Oxford, he has authored many books in the area of evolution and the natural sciences. In this role he has been one of the more outspoken defenders of scientific materialism and atheism and has been a strong critic of all religious belief. Heinrich Joseph Denzinger (1819–1883) A leading Roman Catholic historical theologian, he organized a handbook of creeds and other church documents that chronicle the development of doctrine in the Western Church from the second century onward. Subsequent editions have updated the contents to reflect more recent papal and conciliar decisions and documents. Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) French philosopher. Leading figure in postmodern deconstructionism. René Descartes (1596–1650) French philosopher. Often called the father of modern philosophy, he emphasized the role of methodical doubt, “rejecting everything in which one can imagine the least doubt.” He developed his own version of the ontological argument for the existence of God, similar to Anselm’s. Dionysius the Areopagite (c. 500) Anonymous Christian philosopher and theologian (also called “Pseudo-Dionysius”), named after the Dionysius who is mentioned in Acts 17.34. Pseudo-Dionysius was a mystical theologian who combined elements of Neoplatonism with Christian theology.

611

612

Glossary of Names

Celia Deane-Drummond (b. 1956) Biologist and theologian. Grounded in the Roman Catholic theological tradition, she has written extensively on the interface between theology and the natural sciences. Avery Dulles (1918–2008) American Catholic theologian. His most important writings set forth “models of revelation” and “models of the church.” Duns Scotus (c. 1265–1308) English philosopher and theologian. He taught at Oxford and then at Paris. He wrote insightful commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences and on works by Aristotle and Porphyry. His theology offers a synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Augustinian theology. He stressed the primacy and centrality of Christ as the supreme revelation of God’s love. Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) German painter and engraver. He served as an important bridge between Italian art and Northern German art. He was lauded by both Catholic humanists, such as Erasmus, and by Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) French sociologist. Durkheim stressed the social, institutional, communal aspect of all religions, including Christianity. Gerhard Ebeling (1912–2001) German Lutheran theologian. Influenced by the theologies of Bonhoeffer and Bultmann, Ebeling authored numerous books and essays on the historical Jesus, faith, hermeneutics, and Christian theology. He was the first Protestant theologian in Germany to work on problems in fundamental theology. Johann Eck (1486–1543) German Catholic theologian. He was the leading Catholic theologian in opposition to Martin Luther’s theology and reform efforts. Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) American Reformed theologian. He was the major theologian of his century. His writings and preaching contributed to the so-called “Great Awakening.” A strict Calvinist, he opposed the theology of Arminius. Werner Elert (1883–1954) German Lutheran theologian. Elert stressed the sharp distinction between God’s law and gospel for the sake of grounding faith in the gospel promise alone. Because of his concern for classic Lutheran distinctions between law and gospel and the two kingdoms, Elert became a fierce critic of Karl Barth’s theology, which he thought undermined these important themes. Mircea Eliade (1907–1986) Romanian-born philosopher and scholar of religions. He was particularly influential in his phenomenological interpretations of religious experience and symbols.

Glossary of Names

Emil Fackenheim (1916–2003) German-born Jewish philosopher and rabbi. He became a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. He famously asserted that Jews had the responsibility not to give Hitler any posthumous victories by giving up their Jewish faith and way of life. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) German philosopher. One of the leading atheist thinkers of the nineteenth century. He developed a psychological understanding of religion in which he asserted that the belief in God is the result of human projection of people’s internal desires and ideals. Johann G. Fichte (1762–1814) German philosopher. Cofounder of the University of Berlin, he argued against Schleiermacher that Christian theology did not belong in the university. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (b. 1938) New Testament scholar and American Catholic theologian. She has been particularly concerned with feminist interpretation of the Bible, hermeneutics, and theology. Antony Flew (1923–2010) British philosopher. He was an articulate critic of theism and a defender of atheism for most of his professional life. Later he became a convinced Deist. George Fox (1624–1691) English dissenter and founder of the Society of Friends (Quakers). Hans Frei (1922–1988) German-born American Reformed theologian. Along with George Lindbeck, he was one of the key “postliberal” theologians in the second half of the twentieth century. He wrote especially about christology, biblical hermeneutics, and theological method. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis. He regarded religion as an illusion based on infantile needs. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) German philosopher. He was a major contributor to discussions about philosophical and theological hermeneutics in the second half of the twentieth century. Clifford Geertz (1926–2006) American anthropologist. He was the most significant cultural anthropologist in the last third of the twentieth century. His definition of religion as a cultural system of symbols has been very influential. Johann Gerhard (1582–1637) German Lutheran theologian. He wrote a nine-volume textbook of dogmatics that is unsurpassed as a summary of orthodox Lutheran teaching.

613

614

Glossary of Names

Langdon Gilkey (1919–2004) American Protestant theologian. Gilkey was a major interpreter of the theologies of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich and was a key proponent of Protestant revisionist theology in the second half of the twentieth century. Gregory of Nazianzus (also known as Gregory Nazianzen) (329–389) Greek theologian. One of the three so-called “Cappadocian Fathers.” He was a key interpreter of Origen’s theology. He was a great defender of Nicene orthodoxy. His “Five Theological Orations” offer extensive analysis of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330–c. 395) Greek theologian and bishop of Nyssa. One of the three so-called “Cappadocian Fathers.” He was the younger brother of Basil of Caesarea. A strong defender of Nicene orthodoxy, he was a well-regarded preacher. Influenced by Origen’s theology, he wrote several important works against Arianism and sought to provide a rational understanding of the Trinity, the incarnation, salvation, and the sacraments. Stanley Grenz (1950–2005) American Evangelical theologian. Grenz’s work engaged themes in European Protestant theology, especially the writings of Pannenberg, but he wrote on a wide range of topics from a “moderate” Evangelical perspective. Gustavo Gutiérrez (b. 1928) Peruvian Catholic (Dominican) theologian. His key book, A Theology of Liberation, is a classic contribution to liberation theology. Karl Hagenbach (1801–1874) German Protestant scholar of historical theology. In addition to writing a textbook on the history of Christian doctrines, he wrote a classic theological encyclopedia in which he set forth a fourfold pattern of the subdisciplines: exegetical, historical, systematic, and practical. Adolph von Harnack (1851–1930) German Protestant historian and theologian. Harnack was the major scholar of liberal Protestantism from the end of the nineteenth century into the first third of the twentieth century. His history of Christian dogma is unsurpassed in terms of its breadth and depth, although he tended to neglect the liturgical life of the churches and how it impacted the development of Christian doctrine. David Bentley Hart (b. 1965) American Orthodox theologian. He is a leading interpreter of Eastern Orthodox theology in North America. He is particularly interested in bringing insights from classic patristic sources (such as Gregory Nyssa) into conversation with contemporary figures and issues. Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) American philosopher and theologian. He articulated a modified version of Anselm’s ontological argument for God. Influenced

Glossary of Names

by the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, Hartshorne became a leading figure in process theology. Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) American Methodist theologian and ethicist. He is a leading figure in postliberal, narrative theology. John Haught (b. 1942) American Roman Catholic systematic theologian. Haught has authored many books in the area of science and theology. He has been particularly concerned to show how the theory of evolution can be accepted by Christians. Stephen Hawking (1942–2018) British mathematician and cosmologist. He was not only a leading theoretician in his field, but he did much to popularize important findings in modern physics and cosmology. Philip Hefner (b. 1932) American Lutheran systematic theologian. Hefner has written on the theology of Ritschl but also in the area of science and theology. Like Haught, Hefner has sought to understand the theory of evolution in the context of the Christian doctrine of creation. Georg Hegel (1770–1831) German idealist philosopher. Heavily influenced by Lutheran theology, his philosophical system interprets religious symbols and ideas as figurative representations of philosophical truths. Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) German existentialist philosopher. His most famous and influential work, Being and Time, is a complicated analysis of the historical and temporal character of human beings. Henry VIII (1491–1547) King of England. Instrumental in separating the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church. He named himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. Heinrich Heppe (1820–1879) German Reformed theologian. He authored a definitive textbook of Reformed dogmatics. Herbert of Cherbury (1582–1648) English philosopher and poet. He was a leading Deist. Wilhelm Herrmann (1846–1922) German Protestant theologian. Herrmann was a leading figure in the liberal Protestant tradition. Hesiod (800 BC) Greek poet. His Theogony tells of the birth of the cosmos and of the Greek gods.

615

616

Glossary of Names

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315–367) Western (Latin) theologian and bishop of Poitiers. A convert from paganism, he became the leading Latin theologian of his time and a strong opponent of Arianism. Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) Western (Latin) theologian and abbess of Rupertsberg. She understood herself to be a prophetess, who wrote about several mystical visions she experienced that shed light on the nature of human beings and their salvation in Christ. Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011) British-born American journalist and author. He often criticized institutional religion and described his own position as antitheist. Johannes von Hofmann (1810–1877) German Lutheran theologian and scholar of the Bible. He interpreted the Bible as a witness to God’s acts of salvation in history (Heilsgeschichte). In addition to writing a commentary on the whole of the New Testament, he authored many books and articles on biblical interpretation and theological encyclopedia. David Hume (1711–1776) Scottish philosopher and historian. His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion offers a critical appraisal of various views toward the existence of God. Hume himself was skeptical about that reality. John Hus (c. 1372–1415) Czech Catholic priest, reformer, and forerunner to the Protestant Reformation. He taught philosophy and theology at the University of Prague. Deeply critical of clerical corruption within the church of his day, Hus was burned at the stake at the Council of Constance. He had supported Wycliffe’s ideas about reforming the church and set forth his own proposals that were met with criticism and official condemnation. Thomas Huxley (1825–1895) British biologist. He was a major spokesman for the defense of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. He coined the term agnosticism to describe his own uncertainty about the existence of God. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–c. 200) Bishop of Lyons and one of the first truly systematic Christian theologians. He was a major opponent of Gnosticism. Not only did he stress the fundamental unity between God the Father and Jesus, the Son of God, but he emphasized the centrality of the incarnation of the Logos of God. His opposition to Gnosticism and his defense of the essential unity of the four canonical gospels also furthered the development of the orthodox and catholic biblical canon. Antje Jackelèn (b. 1955) Swedish Lutheran theologian and the archbishop of the Church of Sweden. She has made significant contributions to the dialogue between Christian theology and the sciences.

Glossary of Names

William James (1842–1910) American pragmatist philosopher and scholar of psychology. He argued for the practical usefulness and benefits that come from the deliberate decision to believe in God. His Gifford Lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), is a classic examination of religious conversion and the dynamics of religious psychology. Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) German existentialist philosopher. He held that certain basic human experiences and questions lead one to reflect more deeply about one’s life as a whole and upon matters that have the effect of calling one’s life into question. These are “boundary questions” because they push one beyond trivial knowledge toward what he called “the transcendent.” Jaspers stressed the limitations of science to deal with these boundary questions. Robert Jenson (1930–2017) American Lutheran theologian. A major interpreter of Karl Barth’s theology, Jenson was a leading Lutheran theologian of the past half century. Along with his close friend, Carl Braaten, he was especially interested in fostering ecumenical discussions on key issues that divide Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox. His two-volume Systematic Theology is an impressive articulation of church doctrine from the perspective of ecumenical evangelical-catholicism. Joachim Jeremias (1900–1979) Major German NT scholar. Jeremias was particularly concerned to draw attention to the Aramaic cultural background to the NT. Jerome (c. 345–420) Western scholar of the Bible. His most significant achievement was translating the entire Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). He wrote many commentaries on biblical writings. His judgment that the OT canon should be restricted to the thirty-nine books in the Hebrew canon (and thus excluding the Apocrypha) was later accepted by the Protestant reformers in the sixteenth century. He was a fierce critic of Arianism, Pelagianism, and Origenism, and a strong proponent of asceticism. John of Damascus (c. 655–c. 750) Major Eastern Orthodox theologian and doctor of the church. He is among the most influential of Eastern theologians. He not only set forth a comprehensive summary of the teachings of the Greek fathers on the central doctrines of the church, but he was a strong defender of the use of icons in the church. John Paul II (1920–2005) Second longest serving pope in history. A Polish priest, university chaplain and professor of theology, he eventually was made a bishop, archbishop, and cardinal. After his election as pope in 1978, he traveled extensively throughout the world. His pontificate has been interpreted as having fostered conservative catholic orthodoxy and taken critical steps against perceived false teachings and practices outside of the church (atheism, materialism, Communism) and within Catholic circles (women’s ordination, liberation theology).

617

618

Glossary of Names

John the Scot (c. 810–877) “John the Scot,” also called “Eriugena,” was an Irish theologian and philosopher. He sought to reconcile the Neoplatonist notion of “emanation” with the Christian doctrine of creation. Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) American Catholic scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity. He has written extensively on Luke-Acts, the letters of Paul, and the letter of James. Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) Jewish-Roman historian. His Antiquities of the Jews provides significant information on historical figures that are mentioned in the NT (John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, Jesus of Nazareth, and others). His writings were well-regarded and used by early Christian theologians, such as Jerome. Julian of Norwich (c. 1342–c. 1416) English anchoress, mystic, and spiritual writer. Her book Showings or Revelations of Divine Love has had a great influence, especially among contemporary feminist theologians. This work demonstrates her profound theological understanding of God’s love and suffering in Christ. Eberhard Jüngel (1934–2021) German Lutheran theologian. He was significantly influenced by the theology of Karl Barth and the hermeneutics and theology of Rudolf Bultmann and Bultmann’s students. Along with Pannenberg, Jüngel was the most well-known German Lutheran theologian of the past half century. His work has been particularly influential in the areas of theological hermeneutics and trinitarian theology. Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165) Christian apologist who sought to defend the moral and theological intelligibility of Christian teaching to those who criticized it. In his work he made extensive, positive use of pagan philosophy. Justinian I (c. 483–565) Eastern Roman emperor (after 527). He sponsored the construction of many Christian churches, including the restoration of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. He codified existing Roman law and issued many new laws with Christian content (“Justinian Code”). Martin Kähler (1835–1912) German Lutheran theologian. He wrote extensively on Christian dogmatics, but his most influential writing was his little booklet, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, which stressed that the gospels do not give us a means of reconstructing the historical Jesus as he was in the first century, since they are thoroughly shaped by the postresurrection faith of the early disciples of Jesus. The real, living Christ encounters us in the kerygma or preaching about Jesus by the apostles that is given in the NT documents. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) German Enlightenment philosopher. He wrote groundbreaking books in the areas of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and religion. He

Glossary of Names

was critical of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Nevertheless he postulated the existence of God (along with freedom and immortality) as a necessary presupposition for “moral reason.” God is necessary to apportion happiness in the afterlife in accord with the level of one’s virtue in this life. For Kant, religion is essentially reduced to matters of ethics. Gordon Kaufman (1925–2011) American Mennonite theologian. He was a major revisionist systematic theologian who understood God as “the profound mystery of creativity” and interpreted the theological task as one in service to nonviolence, justice, and human creativity. Kaufman made significant contributions to conversations about religion and science. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) German astronomer. He was also a practicing Lutheran Christian who discerned continuity between the Christian doctrine of God the creator and the scientific order within the universe. Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) Danish Lutheran philosopher and theologian. He attacked the institutional state church for accommodating itself to nonbiblical ideals and was a sharp critic of Hegelian philosophy. His philosophical writings would later influence several European existentialist thinkers. His sharp contrast between God and all things finite would later be developed by Barth and other dialectical theologians. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968) American Baptist pastor and civil rights leader. His sermons, addresses, and writings are a significant example of Christian theology in service to social justice. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Hans Küng (1928–2021) Swiss Roman Catholic theologian. He has written on all major topics in Christian theology and has been a major contributor to ecumenical discussion and interreligious dialogue. He was among the principal theologians of reform (over against traditionalists) at the Second Vatican Council. After the council, he has been attacked for his criticism of papal infallibility, enforced clerical celibacy, and contraception. Gerardus van der Leeuw (1890–1950) Dutch Reformed scholar of religion. He was among the first to use a phenomenological (descriptive) method to describe religious experience. Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) German Lutheran philosopher, mathematician, and theologian. He helped to found the Prussian Academy in 1700. His major work in theology is on the problem of evil in relation to God’s goodness. He defended the traditional arguments for the existence of God.

619

620

Glossary of Names

Leo I (c. 400–461) “Leo the Great,” Pope after 440. He sought to strengthen the church by centralizing power and administrative control through a strengthened papacy. His “Tome” (449) was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon (451) as setting forth orthodox christological doctrine about the two natures of Christ. C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) British literary scholar and Christian apologist. His spiritual autobiography, Surprised by Joy, describes his gradual conversion from agnosticism to orthodox Anglican belief. Some of his radio addresses in defense of Christian faith were later published as Mere Christianity. George Lindbeck (1923–2018) American Lutheran theologian. He was a leading “postliberal” and ecumenical theologian who taught at Yale University. John Locke (1632–1704) English philosopher. Well-known for his treatises on epistemology and government, he was a major voice for religious toleration in the seventeenth Century. His writings on Christianity set forth what he considered a rational understanding of Christianity that is premised on the acceptance of the miracles reported about Jesus and the belief that his life is a fulfillment of Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984) Canadian Roman Catholic theologian. A Jesuit, he published books on theological method that have been influential, especially among revisionist-minded theologians. He was particularly interested in describing the various mental acts of the theologian that are necessary in the process of “doing theology.” Gerd Lüdemann (1946–2021) German scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity. Deeply skeptical about orthodox understandings of Jesus and the New Testament, he attempted to follow a strictly positivist method of historical criticism to attempt to uncover what he thought was authentically historical behind the NT witness. Martin Luther (1483–1546) German Augustinian friar, university scholar of the Bible, translator, and principal reformer in the sixteenth century. Educated in scholastic philosophy and later excommunicated by the pope (1520) because of his criticisms of church practices (e.g., the sale of indulgences) and the papacy, Luther was the key figure in a movement of church reforms that swept northern Europe. The traditional starting point of the Protestant Reformation was the publication of Luther’s 95 Theses in October 1517. The center of his later theology is the PaulineJohannine teaching of justification by faith (alone) and the distinction between the divine law and the divine gospel. Nikolai Luzin (1883–1950) Russian mathematician and Orthodox Christian. His Christian theological understanding of the divine infinity provided him with creative insight into the mathematical problem of infinitesimals within modern calculus.

Glossary of Names

Jean Francois Lyotard (1924–1998) French philosopher, literary theorist, and sociologist. He was a key interpreter of postmodernism and its influence within Western cultures. Alisdair MacIntyre (b. 1929) Scottish-born Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian. His work has been instrumental in using insights and arguments from Aristotle and Aquinas to articulate a post-Enlightenment moral philosophy, one that is critical of the Enlightenment’s rejection of moral ends. He has taught at a wide number of universities in Britain and the United States and has published numerous works in ethics, philosophy, and theology. Maimonides (1135–1204) Spanish-Jewish philosopher. One of the most influential Jewish thinkers. He sought to show continuity between Aristotelian philosophy and Jewish religious ideas. Norman Malcolm (1911–1990) American philosopher. A close friend of Wittgenstein, he articulated a revised version of Anselm’s ontological argument for the reality of God. Marcion of Sinope (c. 85–c. 160) Religious thinker from Asia Minor. Marcion set forth a religious system in which the God of the OT is different from the Father of Jesus, the law is sharply separated from the gospel, and the OT God’s wrath is totally rejected in favor of the love revealed in the gospel of Jesus. George Marsden (b. 1939) American historian of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. An expert on the life and thought of Jonathan Edwards, Marsden has also written on Christianity in higher education and religion in American culture. Martin E. Marty (b. 1928) American historian of American religions and a Lutheran theologian. Marty has written and edited dozens of books on such topics as the history of Protestantism, modern American religions, religious fundamentalism, religion in American public life, and Martin Luther. Marty taught at the University of Chicago for 35 years and served as a senior editor of the Christian Century magazine. Karl Marx (1818–1883) German philosopher and social revolutionary. He asserted that religions function like an opiate to keep the masses content with their status quo. Sallie McFague (1933–2019) American Protestant theologian. She was a leading feminist theologian who criticized traditional, patriarchal models of God for contributing to the degradation of the planet. She understood theology to be a creative, constructive enterprise that must develop better models and metaphors for God, such as her preferred model of the world as “God’s body.”

621

622

Glossary of Names

George McGovern (1922–2012) US representative, US senator, and Democratic Party presidential nominee (1972). A member of the Methodist Church, McGovern was especially concerned with issues of poverty, hunger, and nutrition. Alister E. McGrath (b. 1953) Anglican theologian who was born in Northern Ireland. He has written and edited many books on the history of Christian theology and evangelical systematic theology. An atheist for a short time, McGrath converted to Christianity and later studied for the Anglican priesthood. He has been critical of the “new atheists” and has worked tirelessly to set forth a robust understanding of orthodox Anglican Christianity, one that is engaged in positive, constructive dialogue with the sciences and contemporary culture. Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) German humanist and Lutheran theologian. A close friend and colleague of Martin Luther, Melanchthon taught a variety of courses in theology and the classics at the University of Wittenberg. He was the author of the Augsburg Confession (1530) and its Apology (1531), two of the most important documents in the German Protestant Reformation. His Loci Communes (1521) is the first systematic theology that reflects the theological understandings of Luther. Mary Midgley (1919–2018) British philosopher. She wrote many works in the area of science, ethics, and philosophy. She argued against reductionism in the sciences (“scientism”) and opposed all efforts to substitute the sciences for the humanities. John Milbank (b. 1952) Anglican theologian. The leading figure in the theological movement known as “Radical Orthodoxy,” he resists the idea that modern secular ways of understanding reality should set the agenda for Christian theology. His most significant work, Theology and Social Theory, exposes the theological and antitheological assumptions within the modern social sciences and their dominant paradigms. He has written widely in the areas of religion, ethics, and Christian systematic theology. William Miller (1782–1849) American Baptist minister. He tried to calculate the timing of Christ’s Second Return based on his interpretation of biblical prophecies. Miller helped to found Adventism. Jürgen Moltmann (b. 1926) German Reformed theologian. An atheist as a youth, Moltmann became a Christian following his experiences as a German soldier and a prisoner in a prisoner-of-war camp. His early writings on hope revitalized Christian eschatology and the expectation of the coming kingdom of God. His work on the crucified Christ was instrumental in awakening a political theology that is oriented toward God’s loving solidarity with those who suffer. Moltmann has also made significant contributions to contemporary discussions about the Trinity.

Glossary of Names

Montanus (fl. 2nd cent.) Founder of what was called “Montanism,” an apocalyptic movement in the late second century. Montanus and his followers expected the imminent outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church. Montanus himself evidently claimed to be the Paraclete promised in the Gospel of John. Montanus and his co-prophets engaged in ecstatic prophetic activity. Their asceticism attracted large numbers of Christians in Asia Minor and north Africa, including Tertullian. George L. Murphy (b. 1942) American Lutheran theologian. He has written several important books in the area of science and theology. Nancey Murphy (b. 1951) American philosopher and theologian. She has written extensively in the area of science and theology. Nestorius (b. after 351; d. after 451) Antiochene monk who was the patriarch of Constantinople between his appointment in 428 and his deposition in 431. His understanding of christology led to the heresy of “Nestorianism,” which held that there are two separate persons in the incarnate Christ, the one divine and the other human. Andrew Newberg (b. 1966) American neuroscientist. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801–1890) Anglican theologian who later became a leading Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal. He was the principal figure among those Anglicans who sought greater closeness with the Roman Church. Initially interpreting the Anglican Church as a “middle way” between Catholicism and Protestantism, he later became convinced that the Roman Catholic Church represented the true development of apostolic doctrine and practice. H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962) American Reformed theologian. A professor at Yale University, he wrote widely in the areas of systematic theology and ethics. He was an articulate defender of monotheism over against many forms of idolatry (treating as God that which is not God). His book Christ and Culture sets forth five classic types of relating Christian faith and contemporary civilization. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) German classicist and philosopher. The son of a Lutheran pastor, Nietzsche later moved in the direction of atheism, and he became a fierce critic of Christianity. Gerald O’Collins (b. 1931) Australian Roman Catholic theologian. For more than three decades he taught at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He has written widely in the areas of fundamental theology, christology, and Catholicism.

623

624

Glossary of Names

Schubert Ogden (1928–2019) American Methodist theologian. He taught at the University of Chicago for several years and at Southern Methodist University for 34 years. He has written on theological method, christology, the doctrine of God, and Buddhist-Christian dialogue. Graham Oppy (b. 1960) Australian philosopher. He has written widely in the area of the philosophy of religion. Raised as a Methodist, he later became an atheist. Origen (c. 185–c. 254) Egyptian Bible scholar and theologian. He wrote extensively on the Bible, helped to develop the allegorical approach to biblical interpretation, and sought to reconcile Platonic philosophy and Christian teaching. His most important work, De Principiis, which exists almost entirely in an unreliable Latin translation, examines a wide range of theological topics. Because of later controversy about some of his speculative ideas, his place within the Christian tradition has been ambiguous. Nearly all of his theological writings have become lost. He must be counted one of the most creative and significant theologians in the early Christian church. He was particularly influential upon the Cappadocians. Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) German Lutheran theologian and scholar of comparative religions. His most important work, The Idea of the Holy, examines the role of the numinous, that is, nonrational, non-sensory experience or feeling of the Holy or the Divine within religious experience. His work draws insights from the theological reflections on religious experience by Luther and Schleiermacher. Elaine Pagels (b. 1943) American professor of early Christianity. Pagels has written extensively on Gnostic writings within early Christianity. Influenced by the thesis of Bauer, she has highlighted the role of women in these marginalized Christian documents and has suggested an important connection between Christian Gnosticism and traditions within Buddhism. William Paley (1743–1805) English philosopher and Christian apologist. His most important books, Evidences of Christianity and Natural Theology, sought to defend orthodox Anglican beliefs against the intellectual challenges presented by Deism, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. He is most noted for his argument for the reality of God on the basis of apparent design in nature. Panaetius of Rhodes (c. 185–110 BC) Greek Stoic philosopher. He was the first to divide pagan philosophical theology into three divisions: (1) mythological theology, which maintained and interpreted the stories about the gods from ancient Greece; (2) natural theology, which reasoned about God or the gods on the basis of the world or universe (and was often critical of the ancient myths as fictional and unethical); and (3) civil theology, which served to understand and perform the rites and ceremonies in the cult of the Caesars (and often to justify the political regime).

Glossary of Names

Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–2014) German Lutheran theologian. He was one of the most prolific and influential of Protestant theologians in the second half of the twentieth century. He first came to prominence through his thesis that divine revelation only occurs at the end of time, when God will make clear how he had acted proleptically in Israel and Jesus to redeem the world and bring it to its consummation. In addition to writing about revelation, history, and faith, he wrote extensively on christology, ethics, and the relationship between theology and the sciences. His three-volume Systematic Theology provides a robust understanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and careful reflection on all of the major issues in theology. Parmenides (c. 515–445 BC) Greek philosopher. Often called “the father of Western metaphysics,” he viewed differences in nature as illusory and held that true reality is unchanging, invisible, indivisible, and intelligible. He was thus the first to insist on a distinction between the world as it appears to human beings and reality as it “really is.” Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) French scientist, mathematician, and Roman Catholic theologian. After two religious conversion experiences, one in 1646 and the other, more definitive one in 1654, he sharply distinguished the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from that of which scientists and philosophers speak. His scattered notes, sayings, and aphorisms were gathered together and published posthumously as the Pensées, which was intended as a defense of Catholic Christianity. Paul (or Saul) of Tarsus (c. 10–c. 65) Apostle to the Gentiles. Born a Jew (“Saul of Tarsus”) and educated as a Pharisee, Paul was an opponent of early Christians. While he apparently never encountered Jesus during the latter’s earthly ministry, he later claimed to have received a revelation of the risen Jesus. Paul was baptized and later he understood himself as a slave of Jesus and an apostle to the Gentiles. His authentic letters (Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Phil., 1 Thess., and Phlm.) help to define the center of the NT canon. His missionary activities are depicted in narrative form within the Acts of the Apostles, the second part of the Gospel according to Luke. He was likely martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero. Arthur Peacocke (1924–2006) British biochemist and Anglican theologian. He taught biochemistry at the University of Oxford and later taught theology there and at the University of Cambridge. He wrote several important and influential books and essays in the area of science and Christian theology. Jaroslav Pelikan (1923–2006) American historian of Christian history and doctrine. Baptized as a Lutheran (his father was a Slovak Lutheran pastor in Chicago), he received his MDiv (from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis) and his PhD (from the University of Chicago) in the same year (1946), when he was twenty-two. His fivevolume The Christian Tradition, based on his study of original Christian sources

625

626

Glossary of Names

in their native languages, offers a comprehensive description and analysis of the development of Christian teaching from the time of the apostles to the Second Vatican Council. Peter (d. 64) Apostle to the Jews. Peter is always named first in the lists of apostles in the NT. His primacy has been understood differently by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. Ted Peters (b. 1941) American Lutheran theologian. He has written widely in the areas of systematic theology, theology and the natural sciences, and Christian ethics. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC–AD 50) Egyptian Jewish philosopher. His allegorical method for reconciling Jewish teaching with Platonic philosophy was influential upon later Christian thinkers, notably, Origen and Augustine. Francis Pieper (1852–1931) German-born American Lutheran theologian. Born Franz A. O. Pieper in Pomerania, he was educated in American Lutheran seminaries of the Wisconsin and Missouri synods. His four-volume Christian Dogmatics has been a standard textbook and reference work for conservative Lutherans in the United States. Pontius Pilate (d. c. 37–38) Fifth Roman prefect of the Province of Judaea (AD 26–36). As prefect he served under Emperor Tiberius. Pilate authorized the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932) American philosopher and Reformed theologian. One of the most prolific of American Christian philosophers, he has taught at Calvin College and the University of Notre Dame. He has written extensively in the areas of the philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and Christian theology. He has defended a version of the ontological argument and has analyzed the implications of theistic and atheistic presuppositions within epistemology. Plato (427–347 BC) Greek philosopher. Often called the father of Western philosophy, Plato’s early dialogues treat primarily ethical issues, while two of his later writings, Timaeus and Laws (Book 10), address some theological matters (e.g., creation) and questions of metaphysics. Later platonic philosophy had a profound influence on the development of Christian theology (e.g., on Augustine). Plotinus (205–270) Egyptian Neoplatonist philosopher and mystic. His metaphysical and theological ideas owe much to Plato’s philosophy, although scholars debate among themselves the degree to which they tend toward pantheism rather than theism. In his view, the goal of intellectual, contemplative mysticism and physical asceticism is the union of the individual soul with God.

Glossary of Names

John Polkinghorne (1930–2021) British theoretical physicist, mathematician, and Anglican theologian. Before his retirement, he taught mathematical physics at Cambridge University. His scientific work focused on elemental particles in physics. After becoming an Anglican priest, he wrote many significant books that explore the interface between the sciences and Christian theology. He was one of the foremost proponents of dialogue between practicing scientists and contemporary Christian theologians. Proclus (c. 412–485) Greek Neoplatonist philosopher. The last head of Plato’s Academy, Proclus provided extensive analysis and commentary on the Neoplatonic metaphysics of Plotinus in his book Elements of Theology. This work influenced a number of Christian theologians, including Augustine. Gerhard von Rad (1901–1971) Major German Lutheran scholar of the OT. He pointed to basic statements in the Pentateuch that underscore the centrality of God’s salvific actions. According to von Rad, these statements function like “creeds” or “confessions,” which remind the people of what is most important about the community’s history and identity. Karl Rahner (1904–1984) German Roman Catholic theologian. Rahner was one of the most influential and prolific theologians of the twentieth century. Much of his literary output was in the form of journal articles and essays, although he also wrote several books. Many of his essays were later published in a multivolume edition, Theological Investigations. He served as an editor or coeditor of several standard reference works in Catholic theology. His theological reflections had an impact on the deliberations that occurred at the Second Vatican Council. His Foundations of Christian Faith (1978) offers his analysis and exposition of Christian doctrine. Hermann S. Reimarus (1694–1768) Deist and biblical critic. He rejected miracles and special revelation. His critical writings on the NT form the starting point for the original “quest for the historical Jesus.” Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) French philosopher and Reformed theologian. Ricoeur is perhaps the most influential Christian philosopher of the twentieth century. His reflections on phenomenology and hermeneutics have been especially important for contemporary Christian theologians and interpreters of the Bible. His myriad writings explore myths, symbols, biblical exegesis, psychoanalysis, metaphors, and narrative theory. He taught at universities in France and at the University of Chicago. Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889) German Lutheran theologian. He was the leading systematic theologian in Germany in the second half of the nineteenth century. As such he represents the last main figure in liberal Protestant theology. His thought combined elements from Kant’s moral philosophy, Schleiermacher’s understanding of the church as community, and nineteenth-century historians of Christianity. His

627

628

Glossary of Names

three-volume study of justification and reconciliation remains a classic exposition of these central Christian teachings. Richard L. Rubenstein Jr. (1924–2021) American rabbi and Jewish theologian. He wrote widely on the holocaust, ethics, and Jewish-Christian relations. His book, After Auschwitz (1966), sets forth a Jewish “death-of-God” theology in which he argued that God’s providential direction of history and God’s special relationship with the Jewish people must be rejected “after Auschwitz.” He stressed that people must accept the cold fact that they live in an indifferent and absurd universe. Rosemary Radford Ruether (1936–2022) American Roman Catholic theologian. Ruether was a leading feminist theologian who criticized the patriarchal character of traditional Christianity. In addition to her works of feminist theology (e.g., Sexism and God-Talk), she wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American nationalism, and the theology of ecology. Robert John Russell (b. 1946) American physicist and theologian. Russell was the director for the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, an institution that fosters dialogue between scientists and theologians. E. P. Sanders (1937–2022) American New Testament scholar. He wrote major works on the historical Jesus and the theology of Paul. Hermann Sasse (1895–1976) German-born Lutheran theologian. Sasse was one of the few German theologians of his time who criticized the anti-Christian ideology of the Nazis. Sasse was a confessional Lutheran who sought to take modern scientific and historical-critical scholarship seriously while still affirming the basic doctrinal content of the Lutheran Confessions. Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938) Major German NT scholar and Lutheran theologian. He wrote commentaries on every NT book. His biblical interpretations had a strong influence on Bultmann and Barth. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher (1768–1734) German Reformed theologian and philosopher. Schleiermacher is perhaps the most significant Christian theologian of the past half millennium. A leading figure in German Romanticism, he helped to found the University of Berlin and defended the role of theology as an appropriate university discipline. His dogmatics, The Christian Faith, is the classic liberal Protestant account of Christian teaching. In this work he defines faith as an elemental feeling or intuition of being in relationship with God. He sought to move theology beyond the moralism and rationalism of Kant and the intellectual dogmatism of seventeenthcentury Protestant Orthodoxy. Schleiermacher’s theological encyclopedia, The Brief Outline for the Study of Theology, is the classic Protestant description of the three principal subdisciplines in theology (philosophical, historical, and practical). His

Glossary of Names

revisionist theology has influenced all subsequent Christian theologians, even those who were otherwise quite critical of him (such as Barth). Edmund Schlink (1903–1984) German Lutheran theologian. Schlink is the most significant and influential confessional Lutheran theologian of the second half of the twentieth century and one of the leading figures in the modern Ecumenical Movement. He taught for several decades at Heidelberg University and helped to make that institution a center for ecumenical theology. He was a Protestant observer at the Second Vatican Council and the official spokesperson for all non-Catholic observers. In addition to his ecumenical writings, he wrote a major dogmatics work, Ecumenical Dogmatics, which received high praise from Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox theologians. Heinrich Schmid (1811–1885) German Lutheran theologian and historian. His classic book, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, provides a summary of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lutheran Orthodoxy. He also wrote an influential history of Lutheran Pietism. Hans Schwarz (b. 1939) German Lutheran theologian. Schwarz has written extensively on all the major topics in Christian theology, including theological anthropology, the sacraments, and eschatology. He has been a leading voice in the dialogue between the natural sciences and Christian theology. Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) Alsatian Lutheran theologian, philosopher, medical missionary, renowned organist, and Bach expert. Schweitzer earned advanced degrees in theology, philosophy, and medicine. He wrote classic works on the history of research into the historical figures of Jesus and Paul. Schweitzer himself held that Jesus ought to be understood as a failed apocalyptic prophet who announced the imminent end of the world. At the age of thirty-three Schweitzer left his European academic and cultural world to become a physician at a village in Gabon (then French Equatorial Africa). In 1953 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize of the previous year. Johann S. Semler (1725–1791) German Lutheran theologian. He rejected the Pietism of his youth in favor of rational historical-critical investigation of the Bible and church origins. Sargent Shriver (1915–2011) United States political leader and activist. As a member of the Kennedy administration, he was the leading force behind the creation of the Peace Corps and its first director. He also founded the Jobs Corps and Head Start programs. As a Roman Catholic layman, he attended mass daily. Joseph Sittler (1904–1987) American Lutheran theologian. He taught at the University of Chicago and at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago. He was particularly interested in relating Christian theology and ethics to ecological issues.

629

630

Glossary of Names

Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916–2000) Canadian scholar of world religions and a pastor in the United Church of Canada. An expert in Islam, Smith became a leading figure in religious studies in North America. Jordan Howard Sobel (1929–2010) American-born philosopher. Educated at universities in the United States, he taught philosophy at the University of Toronto. He was leading figure in the philosophy of religion and a major critic of theism. Jon Sobrino (b. 1938) Born in Basque, Sobrino has been a Catholic (Jesuit) theologian in El Salvador for most of his adult life. He helped to found the University of Central America in San Salvador. He has been a leading Latin-American liberation theologian and a vocal supporter for peace and justice. Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705) Lutheran pastor and theologian. He sought to revive the Lutheran Church in German-speaking lands by focusing on the living faith of spiritual rebirth and personal piety. He was critical of what he considered to be the sterile and polemical form of Lutheran Orthodoxy. His work led to the development of the spiritual movement known as “Pietism.” Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) Dutch Jewish philosopher. Spinoza’s thought is complex, but it is clear he held some form of pantheism (all things as part of God). The highest activity of human beings is the loving contemplation of God through the use of human reason. He had a major influence on the development of historical-critical interpretation of the Bible. His philosophical reflections were especially influential on several key nineteenth-century thinkers (e.g., Hegel and Schleiermacher). Krister Stendahl (1921–2008) Swedish Lutheran theologian and scholar of the New Testament. He taught at Harvard Divinity School for many years. David F. Strauss (1808–1874) German Protestant theologian and historian. Strauss’s most famous work, the first edition of The Life of Jesus (1835), criticized both rationalist and conservative understandings of the historical Jesus. For Strauss, the written Gospels contain miraculous elements that appear to be “history” but are really nonhistorical religious ideas that have been shaped by the unconsciously inventive power of legend and embodied in an historic personality. While many have criticized this thesis, Schweitzer notes how central Strauss’s controversial work has been to further the quest for the historical Jesus. B. H. Streeter (1874–1937) Anglican theologian and Bible scholar. Through his analysis of the Synoptic Gospels, he developed the “four-source theory” for solving the synoptic problem: Matthew and Luke used Mark as their basic source, but also a source (“Q”) they had in common but was unused by Mark. In addition, Matthew used a source (“M”) that contained material unique to his Gospel, while Luke used another source (“L”) that contained material unique to his Gospel.

Glossary of Names

Richard Swinburne (b. 1934) British philosopher of religion. He has taught at Keele University and at Oxford. For more than half a century he has been one of the most significant philosophers to articulate arguments for the reality of God and in defense of the Christian faith. Norman P. Tanner (b. 1943) British Jesuit priest and professor of church history. He has compiled a standard scholarly edition of the decrees and canons of all the councils that the Roman Catholic Church deems to have been ecumenical. Charles Taylor (b. 1931) Canadian Roman Catholic philosopher and historian. One of the most important Christian philosophers of the past century, Taylor taught at McGill University. He has been a careful critic of philosophical naturalism and a major contributor to hermeneutical theory. He has written important books on Hegel, the “sources of the self ” in Western culture, and the abiding presence of the sacred in Western civilization. Frederick R. Tennant (1866–1957) British science teacher and Anglican priest and theologian. Tennant sought to defend Christian faith by demonstrating its harmony with modern scientific understandings. His most important book, Philosophical Theology (2 vols, 1928ff.), contains his version of the argument for the reality of God on the basis of the overall apprehension of design within the natural world as a whole. Teresa of Ávila (1515–1582) Spanish Roman Catholic (Carmelite) nun and mystic. She was a great practical reformer in the Catholic “counterreformation” in Spain. She is one of three female “doctors of the church” and thus one of the most important theologians in the Christian tradition. Her writings on mystical theology are particularly significant for what they say about prayer and spiritual ecstasy. Teresa of Calcutta (1910–1997) Albanian-born Roman Catholic nun who lived most of her life among the poorest of the poor and sick in Calcutta, India. “Mother Teresa” founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation that is active today in more than 130 countries. She was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. Tertullian (c. 160–225) North African theologian and church father. Raised as a pagan in Carthage, Tertullian received a good classical education. He later converted to Christianity. He wrote numerous essays on key Christian themes and practices, and he sought to defend Christianity against pagan criticisms. He was particularly influential in the development of Latin terms in Western Christian theology (e.g., the term Trinity). Eventually he joined the Montanists, a heretical group. Theodosius I (347–395) Roman emperor (after 379). He established Christianity as the official religion of the empire.

631

632

Glossary of Names

Ronald Thiemann (1946–2012) American Lutheran theologian. Educated at Yale University, he taught for many years at Harvard Divinity School. Influenced especially by the theology of Barth and postliberal theologians at Yale, Thiemann sought to bring Lutheran theology into conversation with Barthian themes and postliberal narrative theology. Paul Tillich (1886–1965) German-born Lutheran theologian who taught at Union Seminary in New York City, Harvard University, and the University of Chicago. He is one of the two or three most important and influential Protestant theologians of the twentieth century. As a religious socialist and critic of National Socialism, Tillich was forced out of Germany in 1933. Upon his arrival in the United States he quickly established himself as the leading Lutheran theologian in the country. His model of “correlational” theology is sharply distinct from Barth’s revelational model. Tillich’s most important work remains his three-volume Systematic Theology (1951–64). Matthew Tindal (1655–1733) Anglican theologian and later leading Deist. His most important and influential book, Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730), sets forth his particular rationalist, antisuperstitious account of Christianity. John Toland (1670–1722) Irish-born English Deist. He wrote several treatises against what he perceived to be the superstitious corruptions within orthodox Christianity and in defense of his version of authentically “rational” Christianity. He was one of the most influential Deist writers. Thomas Torrance (1913–2007) Scottish Protestant minister and theologian. He wrote major works in all areas of theology but was particularly influential in the dialogue between theology and the sciences. David Tracy (b. 1939) American Roman Catholic theologian. Tracy taught mainly at the University of Chicago. Influenced especially by Tillich and process theologians, Tracy has been one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the past half century. He has made important contributions to discussions about theological method, hermeneutics, and interreligious dialogue. Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923) German historian, philosopher, and theologian. He wrote numerous important essays on the historical development of modern European Christianity and theology. He was among the first to use sociological tools to analyze the development of social teachings within Christianity. He also studied the principles of historical criticism and the problems they create for theological understanding (e.g., historical relativism). Miroslav Volf (b. 1956) Croatian-born Protestant theologian. He has taught at a seminary in his native Croatia, at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, and presently at Yale Divinity School. Influenced especially by Moltmann, Volf has written important

Glossary of Names

works on the Trinity, Christian understanding of other religions, and theological hermeneutics. Charles Wesley (1707–1788) Anglican priest, hymn writer, and later a member of the Oxford Methodists. Unlike his brother John, Charles Wesley opposed those who sought to separate themselves from the Church of England. John Wesley (1703–1791) Anglican missionary and later the founder of the Methodist movement. Educated at Oxford, he formed a group that became known as the Methodists. They included his brother Charles and George Whitefield. He later broke with Whitefield over the latter’s Calvinist view of election. Wesley stressed justification by faith (which he learned from Luther) and the pursuit of holiness or Christian perfection. Lynn White Jr. (1907–1987) American professor of medieval history. His brief article on the historical roots of the ecological crisis set off a major debate about the role that Christianity has played in causing this crisis. George Whitefield (1714–1770) Methodist missionary and evangelist. At Oxford he came under the influence of the Wesley brothers. He was a gifted orator and organizer. He later broke with the Wesleys over the doctrine of election. He made several visits to the United States, where his preaching led to a revival of activity within many churches and helped to prepare the way for the Great Awakening. Elie Wiesel (1928–2016) Romanian-born American Jewish humanities scholar. A professor at Boston University, he has written more than fifty-seven books. Among them is Night, which recounts his experience as a young boy in Nazi concentration camps. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) Austrian-born mathematician and philosopher. He taught at Cambridge University and eventually became a British citizen. His chief works in philosophy explore the relationship between the use of language and one’s understanding of the structure of the world. William Wrede (1859–1906) German Lutheran theologian and scholar of the New Testament. His scholarly work on the Gospel of Mark undermined that Gospel as a source for the historical Jesus. N. T. Wright (b. 1948) Major Anglican theologian and scholar of the NT. Wright is among the most prolific theologians of the contemporary period, who has written significant works on Jesus and Paul.

633

634

Glossary of Names

Xenophanes (c. 570– c. 480 BC) Greek philosopher. He attacked traditional conceptions of the gods among the Greeks. He was particularly critical of anthropomorphism (depicting the gods as human beings) and polytheism. John Milton Yinger (1916–2011) American sociologist. The son of Methodist ministers, Yinger wrote many books in the areas of sociology and anthropology. Nikolaus von Zinzendorf (1700–1760) German Protestant pastor and community leader. He founded the Christian colony of Herrnhut (“the Lord’s Keeping”), which attracted many persecuted Moravians. He later became the bishop of the Moravian Brethren. He wrote more than 100 spiritual books and pamphlets. Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) Swiss theologian and reformer. He brought about a series of political and ecclesial reforms in Zürich. Later, he and Luther disagreed about the nature of the presence of the glorified Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Against Luther’s view of “the real presence,” Zwingli taught that it is only the communicant’s faith that makes Christ present in the sacrament.

Glossary of Terms

A posteriori Latin: “from the latter.” In the context of philosophical theology, a posteriori arguments for the reality of God proceed from effects to causes (inductive reasoning). The five ways of Thomas Aquinas are an example of this kind of argument. A priori Latin: “from the former.” In the context of philosophical theology, a priori arguments for the reality of God proceed from causes to effects (deductive reasoning). Anselm’s ontological argument and Kant’s moral argument are examples of this kind of argument. Abbess Female head of a community (abbey) of nuns. Abbot Male head of a community (abbey) of monks. ad See Anno Domini. Adiaphora Greek: “indifferent things.” This term has been used by Christians to refer to teachings or practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in Holy Scripture, that is, to matters that are either peripheral or non-essential to the Christian faith. Agnosticism/Agnostic Greek: “not knowing.” An agnostic does not know with any certainty whether or not God exists. Some agnostics are convinced that all knowledge of God cannot be known. Analogy of faith The hermeneutical principle in Christian theology that states a biblical passage cannot be so interpreted that it goes contrary to the clear and essential content of Christian faith, that is, faith in the gospel promises of God and the dictates of Christian love. Anfechtung/Anfechtungen German: “spiritual crisis/crises.” Martin Luther used this German term to describe his complex experience of doubt, spiritual attack from the devil, and his troubled conscience before God. For additional information about any of these terms, see the pertinent entries in ABD, EC, ER, ODCC, and RPP. See also Orlando O. Espín and James B. Nickoloff, eds., An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2007); and Leo F. Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995).

636

Glossary of Terms

Anno Domini (AD) Latin: “In the year of the Lord.” This expression and its abbreviation have been used by Christians since the sixth century to identify the years since the birth of Jesus. “AD” normally comes before the date, for example, AD 2023. Anthropomorphism Ascribing human features or attributes to the gods or God. Antilegomena Latin: “spoken against.” This term refers to those Christian writings that were “spoken against” in the early church because of doubts regarding their apostolic authorship and because of questions about their contents. These writings were not widely used in early Christianity. Within the NT canon, there are seven antilegomena: Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and Revelation. Apocalyptic Greek: “revelatory.” This adjective describes a genre of writing that is found in the Old Testament (e.g., Daniel, parts of Isaiah), second-temple Judaism (e.g., First and Second Ezra), and the New Testament (Mark 13; The Revelation of John). This type of writing is highly symbolic, deeply pessimistic about the present world, and yet hopeful for a new creation from God. Apocalyptic literature “reveals” or “discloses” the hidden plan of God to destroy the forces of evil (e.g., Satan and his angels) and to create a new and better creation. Apocrypha Greek: “hidden things” (“hidden writings”). The Apocrypha are those books that appear in the Greek canon of the OT (the Septuagint) but are not included in the Hebrew Bible. Their authority was often disputed by early Christians, although they were included in most early forms of the Christian Bible. They have a status similar to the antilegomena in the NT. Apologetics Greek: “defense.” Within Christian theology, apologetics seeks to defend the truth of the Christian faith and to criticise false or misleading ideas in theology. Apostle Greek: “one who is sent.” The term was first used as a title for each of the twelve people whom Jesus called to follow him. In the lists of apostles that appear in the NT, Peter is always listed first. Although he was not among the Twelve, Paul used and defended the title for himself and for others beyond the twelve (including at least one woman, Junia). Sometimes the term is also used for later missionaries who first bring the gospel to a country. Apostles’ Creed See Creed. Apostolic succession The teaching that the current spiritual authority of bishops and priests derives from the authority of the apostles that has been transmitted to them through a succession of bishops and priests that go back to the original apostles. The succession is said to be maintained by an historical series of bishops who lay hands on individuals when the latter are ordained into the holy ministry.

Glossary of Terms

Arianism The heresy that the Son of God is not coeternal and consubstantial (homoousion = “of the same being,” “of the same essence”) with God the Father. Ascension The teaching that Jesus, after his resurrection, “ascended into heaven” (Luke 24.51; Acts 1.9-11). Aseity Latin: “from himself.” This term is used in systematic theology to describe God’s self-existence or God’s “necessary being” in contrast to the “contingent being” of creation. Atheism/Atheist Atheism is the confident belief that God and/or the spiritual are not real. An atheist is one who is convinced by the truths of atheism. Atonement Within Christian theology this term is used to describe God’s redeeming action to reconcile the world to God through Jesus Christ. Baptism Greek: “washing.” Baptism is held by many Christians to be a sacrament of initiation into the Christian church and thus a means of divine grace. Some churches practice what is often called “believers baptism,” in which baptism is the external sign of an inward conversion to the faith. Baptist The principal Protestant tradition in North America. Baptists insist on believers baptism. bc “Before Christ.” A Christian abbreviation that refers to years before the birth of Jesus. bce “Before Common Era.” A more neutral abbreviation than “BC,” this abbreviation is frequently used by scholars to refer to the years before the birth of Jesus. Bible The English word Bible comes from the Greek word biblia, which means “books.” The Christian Bible is a collection of books that were written over many centuries and gradually collected together into authoritative versions. For most Protestant Christians, the OT contains 39 separate books and the NT 27. Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox Christian Bibles contain the OT Apocrypha in addition to the 39 OT books. Biblical theology A subdiscipline of historical theology that seeks to understand the theological content of the Christian Bible. Biblicism This term describes the view of the Bible by those who insist on the complete verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Christian Bible and upon their literalistic interpretations of certain chapters in it (e.g., the stories in Genesis 1–11).

637

638

Glossary of Terms

Bishop Greek: “episkopos” = “overseer.” One who provides spiritual oversight and leadership to Christians in a given locale. Boundary questions According to the philosopher Karl Jaspers, these are questions that arise from human experience that have the force of calling one’s life as a whole into question. For example, what is the meaning of my life? To whom am I responsible in my life? Canon Greek: “measuring rod.” In biblical studies, this term refers to the collection of biblical writings that served as the norm or rule for Christian teaching in a given place or tradition. Canon within the canon Within Christian theology, this expression refers to the norm of the gospel within the biblical canon. This internal norm of Scripture serves as the key for interpreting the rest of the contents within the Bible and for making theological judgments about biblical teachings that are no longer valid or binding upon contemporary Christians. Those who work with this hermeneutical principle trace its origins back to the critical position that Jesus, Paul, and the apostle John took against the OT biblical law. Canonical Gospels The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Catholic/catholicity Greek: “of the whole” or “according to the whole” (universal). The term catholic (with a small “c”) refers to the whole church of Christ, inclusive of all believers. The term Catholic (with a large “C”), which should be modified with the term Roman, refers to a specific church group, the Roman Catholic Church, whose head is the bishop of Rome. Within biblical studies, catholicity refers to the degree to which a biblical book was widely used in the early church. ce “Common Era.” A more neutral abbreviation than “AD” that is used by scholars to refer to the years following the birth of Jesus. See ad. Chalcedon Place of the fourth ecumenical council (AD 451). The Formula of Chalcedon states that Jesus is truly God and truly human, having two natures in one person “without division, without separation, without confusion, without change.” Christ See Messiah. Christian One who believes that Jesus is the Messiah and follows his teachings. Christology Thinking and speaking about the person of Jesus as the Christ. Christology focuses principally on the question “Who is Jesus?”

Glossary of Terms

Church Greek: “Ekklesia” = “called out ones”. In the New Testament the “ekklesia” is the assembly or congregation of believers, who are also routinely called “saints” in the letters of Paul. In this view the “church” is the congregation of people (never a building). Later, the term church will be used to refer to a building where the congregation gathers for worship and prayer. “Ecclesiology” is the study of the church, its traditions, its polity or organization, and its activities. Comparative theology See Ecumenical theology. Consonance This refers to the degree of agreement between theologians and scientists on a given issue or problem that they have in common. Contextual theologies Forms of thinking about God that are especially shaped by the local and concrete human situations in which that thinking occurs. Examples are political theology, liberation theology, and feminist theology. Contingent being Within philosophical theology, the term contingent refers to all things that are dependent for their being upon something else. Unlike “necessary being,” contingent beings do not have to be or exist. Cosmology/Cosmological Greek: “kosmos” = “order,” “universe”. Thinking about the cause of the universe. The cosmological argument for the reality of God arises from reflection on the causation, change, or contingency of the universe’s existence and concludes that God is the cause of that existence. Thomas Aquinas’s first three “ways” are variations of this cosmological argument. One form of the cosmological argument states that a first cause must be assumed to account for the existence of the universe. Another form of the argument states that the very existence of the universe implies the reality of a first cause (regardless of whether the universe had a beginning). Creatio ex nihilo Latin: “Creation from nothing.” This phrase has been used by Christian theologians to underscore that everything that is or exists is distinct from God the Creator and totally dependent upon God for its creaturely being. The phrase emphasizees that creation is not eternal with God, nor did it come from matter that is coeternal with God. Only God is eternal, while all things that exist are contingent upon God for their existence. Creationism/Creationist Creationism is a minority movement in Christianity that insists that the stories in the first chapters of Genesis are to be understood as historical descriptions that summarize an actual sequence of events in the not-toodistant past. Creationists typically insist that the age of the universe is quite young, perhaps around 10,000 years old, and that God created all things over the course of six literal twenty-four-hour days.

639

640

Glossary of Terms

Creed Latin: “Credo” = “I believe.” A creed is a short, formal, and authoritative summary of the key elements of religious teaching or belief. Within Christianity there is one creed that is used by a majority of Christians, namely, the NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed (sometimes just called “the Nicene Creed”), which has remained unchanged since the fourth century in the East but which was modified in the West after the fifth century (adding the so-called “filioque” clause, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from “the Father and the Son”; the original creed refers to the procession of the Spirit solely “from the Father”). Within Western Christianity there are many additional creeds, the most frequently used of which is the so-called “Apostles’ Creed,” which developed from an old Roman baptismal creed after the second century. The so-called “Athanasian Creed,” which was not written by Athanasius (despite its traditional name), is a Western, Latin creed that likely originated in Gaul in the sixth century. Deism This term refers to a seventeenth-century intellectual movement that affirmed God as the Creator of the universe but rejected God’s further involvement in the created order. Deists often compared God to a watchmaker who created the intricate, machine-like universe, wound it up, and let it operate on its own without any further divine intervention. Demystification The process of explaining (away) by rational means matters that were formerly mysterious and understood in a superstitious way. Denomination An individual group or sect of Christians, for example, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and so on. Deus absconditus See Hidden God Dialectical In the context of theology this term refers to a way of critical reasoning that oscillates between contrasting truths in order to arrive at a more accurate understanding. In other words, dialectical thinking examines paradoxes (e.g., that the kingdom of God is both a present reality and a future reality, or that God is both “hidden” and “revealed,” or that the word of God is both “law” and “gospel”). Dialectical theology A movement within early twentieth-century German Protestantism associated primarily with the theologies of Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann. This group of theologians emphasized the qualitative difference between God and creation and the “dialectic” that results from both negating creation under God’s judgment and affirming it under God’s grace. Dispensational churches Protestant churches influenced by the ideas of John Nelson Darby (1800–82). Christians in these churches believe that the history of the world, as recounted in the Bible, unfolds in a series of dispensations or eras. Christians in these churches interpret the book of Revelation as a blueprint for end-time events

Glossary of Terms

and the second coming of Jesus. This is the dominant view among fundamentalist Protestants in the United States. Distanciation Within the hermeneutical reflections of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, distanciation refers to the critical distancing of the interpreter from that which is interpreted. Ricoeur stressed how a given text stands at a distance from the interpreter who treats it as a distinct object. Divinization Theopoiēsis (Greek: “making divine”), sometimes also called theosis (Greek: “deification,” “divinization”), is the Eastern Orthodox teaching that Christ’s humanity is a deified humanity, and that human beings are called to participate in this deified humanity, that is, to share in its deification. See, for example, the famous statement by Athanasius: “For [the Word of God] was made human so that we might be made divine” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, NPNF2, 4.65 [trans. modified]). Doctor of the church One recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as a particularly outstanding teacher in the church. Among the most important Western doctors of the church are Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. Doctrinal theology A subdiscipline of historical theology that sets forth the contemporary content of Christian teaching. Doctrine Latin: “that which is taught.” Normally in Christian theology this term refers to specific teaching that comprises an article of faith, such as the doctrine of the church or the doctrine of baptism. See Dogma. Dogma Greek: “opinion.” In Christian theology a “dogma” is an official doctrine or teaching that has been formally defined at an ecumenical council in order to set forth the orthodox understanding of whatever is presented in the dogma. The most important dogmas are those set forth by the first seven ecumenical councils, which focused on a correct understanding of God and the person of Jesus Christ. There are thus two central dogmatic foci in the Christian tradition: the Trinity and Jesus Christ. While Roman Catholic theologians stress that dogmas are truths revealed through divine revelation and authoritatively taught by the church’s magisteria, Protestant theologians hold that all dogmatic formulations in the church’s tradition are in principle open to revision. Eastern Orthodox churches A group of churches, situated mainly in Eastern Europe (especially Greece and Russia), that share the same Orthodox Christian faith, are in communion with one another, and honor the primacy of the patriarch of Constantinople.

641

642

Glossary of Terms

Ecclesial studies (Greek: “Ekklesia” = “called out ones” = “congregation” or “church”) A subdiscipline in practical theology that examines Christian congregations and other Christian organizations. It is sometimes called “ecclesiology.” See Church. Ecclesiology See Ecclesial studies. Ecumenical council The term ecumenical comes from a Greek word that means “of the whole household.” Within Christianity the term refers to the whole church throughout the world. The first ecumenical council met in Nicaea in AD 325 to address the Arian controversy. Subsequent to that first council there were six others that the Western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches acknowledge as “ecumenical.” The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges fourteen additional councils, but these are not recognized by either the Orthodox Church or Protestant churches. Ecumenical theology Sometimes also called “comparative theology,” this form of theology intentionally seeks positive engagement with theological understandings across the spectrum of church groups and denominations. Eisegesis Greek: “leading into.” This term refers to reading into a Scriptural passage an understanding that is not supportable by the text. Elder See Presbyter. Encylopedia Greek: “circle of learning.” The term initially referred to that course of instruction that a person would follow to become an educated citizen. Later the term referred to a collection of books whose editors sought to summarize all known human knowledge. Within Christian theology, the term refers to a short analysis of the subdisciplines or branches within the academic discipline of theology. See Theological encyclopedia. Enlightenment Intellectual movement that began in the seventeenth century and reached its zenith at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It stressed the power of human reasoning to know what is good and true. Immanuel Kant defined “enlightenment” as “daring to know on your own,” that is, to dare to think apart from any external authorities, for example, the institutional church. Epistemology Philosophical reflection on how human beings know what they know. Eschaton/Eschatological Greek: “the end”/”speaking about the end times.” Within Christianity the eschaton refers to “the last day.” Eschatology addresses “end things,” especially the resurrection of the body, divine judgment, the consummation of creation, and eternal life. When the apostles spoke of the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus, their statements are “eschatological.”

Glossary of Terms

Ethics A subdiscipline in practical theology (although some place it within doctrinal theology) that addresses moral principles and conduct. Eucharist Greek: “thanksgiving.” After baptism, the most central sacrament for many Christians. Sometimes called “the Lord’s Supper,” “the Mass,” “The Divine Liturgy,” or “Holy Communion,” the NT indicates this sacrament was instituted by Christ at his final meal with his disciples on the night of his betrayal. At its institution Christ “gave thanks.” The majority of world Christians believe that this sacrament conveys the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins to those who receive the consecrated bread and wine. Evangelical First used by Martin Luther and his supporters, the term comes from the Greek word that means “good message” or “good report” (see Mk 1.15-16 and 1 Cor. 15.1ff.). Luther stressed that his theology was “evangelisch” (“evangelical”), that is, “oriented toward the good news or gospel.” Since the sixteenth century, many Lutheran churches and some other Protestant churches have understand the term evangelical to be synonymous with “Protestant” or “Lutheran,” especially in Germany. Many Lutheran churches that follow the teachings of Luther also use the word evangelical in the sense that he gave it. But after 1942, with the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals, this word began to take on a different meaning. It now was used to define those American Protestants and their denominations that opposed the “modernist,” liberal, and ecumenical Federal Council of Churches (later called the National Council of Churches). In this context an “evangelical” is a conservative Protestant Christian who has undergone a conversion experience (“being born again”) and who affirms the inerrancy of the Bible, the miracles it reports, the blood atonement of Jesus, his physical resurrection, and his Second Coming. Most evangelicals also oppose the theory of evolution and, at least since the 1950s, have generally supported conservative, Republican political causes. Exegesis Greek: “leading out.” Within biblical theology, this term refers to the process of discerning the meaning of a biblical text and drawing it out from Scripture. Existentialist theology This form of theology, influenced especially by key ideas from Kierkegaard, Kant, Luther, and modern existentialist philosophers, focuses upon the human situation, human freedom, and the divine summons to live by faith/ trust in God. Key figures in this movement are Bultmann, Tillich, and Ebeling. Explanation According to Paul Ricoeur, within the process of interpretation explanation is the initial effort to understand what a text says. Faith A key concept within Christian theology. Some theologians stress the cognitive aspect of faith (“faith as knowing”). They maintain that that faith is acquiesence to a body of teaching (“doctrines”), authoritatively set forth in Scripture and taught by the church. The Latin expression for this understanding of faith is “fidei quae

643

644

Glossary of Terms

creditur,” namely, “the faith that is believed.” Other theologians stress the personal, existential aspect of faith (“faith as trusting”). These theologians maintain that faith is first and foremost a person’s confident trust in God. The Latin expression for this understanding of faith is “fidei qua creditur,” “the faith by which one trusts.” Feminist theology A contextual theology that is critical of male-dominated forms of theology and church practice, that seeks to highlight the experience of women and their struggle for equality and justice, and that transforms theology to be more attentive to feminist concerns. Filioque Latin: “and from the Son.” This phrase was added to the original NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed by Western theologians in the sixth century. The original creed confessed the procession of the Holy Spirit “from the Father.” The Western interpolation confesses the Spirit to proceed “from the Father and the Son.” This addition contributed to theological disagreement between Eastern and Western theologians and was one of the reasons for the official schism between the Eastern Church and the Western Church in AD 1054. Final cause According to Aristotle, a final cause is the end toward which a thing naturally develops or toward which it aims. Fine-tuning The recognition that many of the features of the universe appear to have been designed specifically for the origin and evolution of life. First Commandment According to Exodus 20.2, the first words that the LORD spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai, after the Exodus from Egypt, were: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.” The five ways According to Thomas Aquinas, there are five “ways” by which one can rationally move from observing phenemena in this world to positing the reality of God. In each way one observes phenomena in this world of sense experience and then moves from such sensing to the conclusion that God exists. The first of these ways is motion, the second is causation, the third is contingency, the fourth is degrees of perfection, and the fifth is purpose. The first three ways are often identified as variations of “the cosmological argument,” while the final way is often called “the teleological argument.” See Cosmological argument and Teleological argument. Forgiveness The Christian gospel or “good news” centers on God’s free and graceful act to forgive sinners their sins on account of Christ’s death and resurrection. This forgiveness is received by faith. As a consequence to the gospel, Christians are called to forgive and love others.

Glossary of Terms

Fundamental theology That subdiscipline of theology that seeks to provide a scholarly defense of the place of theology within the academic disciplines and to discern what can be known of God through general revelation (“natural theology”) and special revelation (“revealed theology”). While fundamental theology has long been a Roman Catholic concern, especially with regard to the relationship between metaphysics and theology, Protestant theologians have also addressed issues in this subdiscipline, usually within theological prolegomena. In this book, fundamental theology from a Lutheran-Protestant perspective entails reflection on the natural knowledge of God, philosophical theology, special revelation, the sources and norms of Christian theology, hermeneutics, and theological encyclopedia (including the relationship of theology to other academic disciplines). Fundamentalism A movement within American Evangelical Protestantism that began in the 1920s and that expressed itself in a series of pamphlets called The Fundamentals. Among the “fundamental” teachings defended by these Protestants are the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus, the blood atonement of Christ, his bodily resurrection, and his Second Coming. As an attitude or mindset, “fundamentalism” appears in most religions. Fundamentalism should not be confused with “fundamental theology.” General revelation According to Paul and John, all human beings, even those who worship other gods, have some knowledge of the one, true God and are thus without excuse when they do not worship or serve God and instead serve other gods. This natural knowledge of God is often called “general revelation.” It is distinct from special revelation, which is grounded solely in the historical self-giving of God in and through specific events as these are attested to in Holy Scripture. Gentile A biblical term that refers to a non-Jew. Glaubenslehre German: “teaching of faith.” This term was used by Schleiermacher to describe his systematic theology as setting forth the Protestant “way of believing.” Since justification by grace through faith alone is the central “Protestant principle” (Tillich), the doctrine of faith or teaching about faith permeates every aspect of a properly Protestant dogmatics. Glory of God An important biblical concept that describes the awesome presence of God manifested in the mighty acts of God in ancient Israel. In the NT God’s glory is revealed in and through Jesus, his miracles, and especially his death and resurrection. Gnosticism/Gnostic Based on the Greek word for “knowledge,” Gnosticism was a broad religious movement of “secret” or hidden knowledge that came to prominence within early Christianity in the second, third, and fourth centuries. A Gnostic was one who believed in the secret knowledge of a “divine spark” imprisoned within the body that would be released from the body at death to return to a higher, spiritual

645

646

Glossary of Terms

level. All Gnostics devalued the physical, material world, including the physical body of human beings. Gnosticism was rejected as heretical by mainstream catholic and orthodox Christianity. God Within Christian theology “God” is both a proper noun (and thus always capitalized) and an abstract noun that refers to the nature of the divine as the absolute cause of the universe. Christians confess and teach that God is “triune,” consisting of “three persons in one substance,” the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. See God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son of God God the Father Within orthodox and catholic trinitarian theology, God the Father is the One source of all that is, the One who loves the Son from all eternity and who has sent the Son into the world to love the world and to redeem it from sin, death, and the power of evil. The Father has also sent the Holy Spirit into the world to bring to fulfillment the new creation inaugurated through the salvific action of the Son. Golden Rule A specific ethical teaching that is found (in varying forms) within all of the major world religions. Jesus taught it as follows: “Do unto others what you would have them do to you.” Gospel Greek: “good message” or “good report”; Old English: “godspel” or “good news.” According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus taught that the “gospel” is his announcement that “the time is fulfilled” and “the kingdom of God has come near” (see Mk 1.14-15). The apostle Paul defined “the gospel” as the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins (see 1 Cor. 15.1ff.). After the first century, the canonical Gospels were each given the title of “Gospel” because they set forth the one gospel concerning Jesus (“The Gospel according to Mark,” “The Gospel according to Matthew,” and so on). (The title of “Gospel” was also given to much later documents, called collectively “the Apocryphal Gospels,” but these were rejected as nonapostolic and heretical within early Christianity.) Within mainstream Christianity, the gospel is first and foremost the proclamation of the divine forgiveness of sins on account of Christ’s death and resurrection. A corollary to this teaching is the Pauline emphasis that a sinner is justified before God by divine grace through faith in Jesus Christ. This gospel or good news, which is also expressed in other terms within the OT and NT, is the central teaching within Christianity. Grace Latin: “favor” or “a favorable act.” A central teaching within Christianity since it expresses the divine favor that God has toward all sinners and the divine act to overcome the estrangement between God and sinners. While all Christians confess that God’s free and unearned grace is absolutely essential to their salvation, they disagree about how one is to think about this unearned act of God and how it overcomes sin in the life of the Christian believer. For example, Roman Catholic Christians understand grace as a sacramental power that works in the believer to make them holy and acceptable to God, whereas Protestant Christians understand

Glossary of Terms

grace as God’s act of forgiving and accepting sinners solely on account of their faith (trust) in Christ. Hebrew Bible Hebrew: “Tanak.” This collection of Jewish Scriptures, most but not all of them written in Hebrew, refers to the TaNaK: “the Torah” (“the Law”), “the Nebiim” (“the Prophets”), and the “Kethubim” (“the Writings”). The terms Hebrew Bible or Tanak are often used by scholars in an interfaith or scholarly setting to avoid making a theological judgment about that canon, as the Christian designation of it as “Old Testament” does. The Hebrew Bible closely corresponds to the canon of the Old Testament in most Protestant Bibles but differs from the Old Testament canon in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. See Old Testament. Heilsgeschichte German: “salvation history” or “history of salvation” or “narrative of salvation.” This term was invented and used by German scholars, including most importantly Johannes von Hofmann, who comprehended the Bible’s essential content as a witness to God’s saving actions in history. In this view the Bible is neither a collection of dogmatic statements nor a set of ancient writings to be understood merely historically and philologically. Instead the Bible presents a basic canonical narrative that reveals God’s “self-giving” in history. This narrative begins with the promise to Abram, unfolds in the history of ancient Israel, and culminates in the coming of Jesus and the eschatological gift of the Spirit. The “center” of this history is Jesus, toward whom the history of Israel was moving and through whom all history is brought to its fulfillment. Henotheism Greek: “one God.” Henotheism is a modern term for describing the ancient belief that there is only one true God (“the LORD”) among the many other real (but “false”) gods in the surrounding nations. In contrast to monotheism, which holds that there is only one true and living God, henotheism acknowledged the reality of the other gods but considered them to be inferior to their particular God. Some scholars maintain that henotheism was the original form of ancient Israelite religion that eventually gave way to strict monotheism. Heresy/heretic Greek: a (false) “choice.” The term heresy came to be used in early Christianity to refer to those who choose a teaching that is contrary to central and essential tenents within orthodox and catholic teaching, usually concerning the nature of the triune God and the person and work of Christ. Later the term refers to teaching that members of a given church body deem to be contrary to the teachings of their church. Hermeneutics Greek: “to interpret.” Within Christian theology, hermeneutics refer to venerable principles of biblical interpretation (the methods of “exegesis”) and to the process of theological understanding that arises from the use of those methods by the contemporary interpreter.

647

648

Glossary of Terms

Hermeneutical circle A metaphor for the process of interpreting any object. One way of describing the circles is as follows: The interpreter has an initial preunderstanding of an object (a work of art, a novel, a biblical story, etc.), but then, in the process of critically engaging the object, the preunderstanding is partly confirmed and partly corrected or modified. This new understanding then becomes a new preunderstanding for the next engagement with the object. Philosophers and theologians from Schleiermacher to Gadamer and Ricoeur have understood the “circle” differently, but all have noted the circular character of all authentic interpretation. Hermeneutical theology Forms of Christian theology that pay special attention to the role of hermeneutics in theological understanding. Many theologians, such as Bultmann and Ricoeur, regard hermeneutics, rather than metaphysics, as the central task of Christian theology. Hidden God A biblical notion that expresses the experience of the absence or radical transcendence of God. Martin Luther emphasized this notion, based on his close reading of the Psalms (many of which lament the absence of God or that heighten the awareness of God as a divine threat to one’s well-being), Isaiah (e.g., “You are truly a God who hides himself ”), the suffering of Job, and the suffering and death of Jesus (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). Higher faculties Within medieval universities, these referred to the disciplines of law and theology. Later medicine was added to them as well. Historical-critical method Sometimes called “historical criticism” or “higher criticism,” this refers to a set of academic methods used by scholars to understand the historical, literary, and social contexts of the biblical writings, the world “behind” the text. The method assumes that the Bible can be studied like any other ancient set of documents, using the same historical and critical approaches that other scholars use to understand documents and artifacts from the past. Historical criticism See Historical-Critical method. Historical Jesus This phrase is used by scholars to refer to the Jesus “behind” the written Gospels, to Jesus “as he really was” in the first century, or to Jesus as he can be “uncovered” through modern historical-critical tools and methods (which is never identical to Jesus “as he really was”), in contrast to Jesus as he is presented in the canonical Gospels and interpreted within the dogmatic tradition of the Christian church. Historical theology A subdiscipline of theology that examines biblical theology, doctrinal theology, the history of Christian theology, and the history of Christianity. Historicism Within Christian theology, historicism refers to a philosophical or metaphysical perspective that views the Bible only and entirely as a humanly

Glossary of Terms

constructed set of ancient documents and denies or brackets out of consideration the theological, supra-historical dimension within these writings and their witness to divine revelation. The Holy Spirit Within orthodox and catholic Christianity, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, who proceeds from the Father (Eastern Orthodoxy) or from the Father and the Son (Western Catholicism and Protestantism) and is the bond of union between the Father and the Son. Homologoumena Greek: “agreed upon (things).” Within the history of Christianity, this term refers to those biblical writings that were nearly universally agreed upon as sacred Scripture, in contrast to those writings that were “spoken against” (the antilegomena). Homoousion Greek: “of the same being”; “of one substance.” A nonbiblical term used by some ancient Christians to stress the identity of the Logos with God. The term was debated at Nicaea in AD 325 in the context of arguments about the position of Arius regarding the Logos. The term was eventually incorporated into the creed that was accepted by the majority of bishops at that council. The creed underwent further modification at the next ecumenical council in Constantinople (AD 381). This Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed states that the Logos of God is “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being [“homoousion”] with the Father, by whom all things were made.” See Creed. Humanities Within liberal arts universities the humanities refer to those academic disciplines that study history, literature, the visual and performing arts, architecture, music, drama, philosophy, world religions, and theology. Icon Greek: “likeness,” “image.” An icon is a flat painting, often on wood but also on other materials, that represents Christ, the Virgin Mary, or another saint. Icons are used and venerated within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Iconoclast Greek: “image-breaker.” One who opposes the use of icons. Iconoclastic controversy A controversy over the use and veneration of icons in the Eastern Orthodox Church during the eighth and ninth centuries. At this time Christians who tended to downplay the humanity of Christ and his incarnation also tended to be critical of the use of images in the church. Those who defended the use of icons (iconophiles) often met with violent opposition from those who objected to their use (iconclasts). Many Christian iconoclasts were influenced by Jewish and Muslim polemics against icons, which they viewed as idolatrous. Many iconophiles were martyred because of their defense of icons. Eventually the Eastern Church officially endorsed the use and veneration of icons and strongly rejected the iconoclastic position.

649

650

Glossary of Terms

Iconophile Greek: “image-lover.” One who defends the use of icons. Image of God Gen. 1.26 and other Scripture passages indicate that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Theologians have disagreed among themselves about what these terms (image, likeness) mean. Irenaeus and Origin distinguished between the two: image referred to the original state of humans before the fall into sin and likeness referred to their final state in glory. Other theologians saw the terms as synonyms. Many interpreted the terms to refer to the moral freedom of human beings or to their ability to reason or to a quality of their soul (e.g., immortality). Protestant reformers generally held that the image was entirely lost due to the power of sin and human depravity and is only restored through Christ, whereas Roman Catholics and other theologians hold that the image has been distorted but not totally destroyed. Incarnation of the Word The Christian teaching (based on John 1.14 and other passages) that the eternal Word (Logos) became a human being through Mary, his human mother. The incarnated Word is thus at once fully divine (from eternity) and fully human (born of Mary). Inerrancy of Scripture The teaching that the Bible contains no errors. Some theologians understand the inerrancy of Scripture to be synonymous with its infallibility, that is, it will not mislead a person in the essential matters of faith. Others, particularly Protestant fundamentalists, insist that the Scriptures (properly understood) contain no errors of any kind. Still others hold that while the Bible contains some errors, these are of little significance to the central teachings of Christianity. Infallibility This term has been used in Western Christianity in two different ways. On the one hand, some Christians have used it in reference to the authority of the Bible, that is, the Bible will not mislead a person in the essential matters of faith and morals. On the other hand, Roman Catholic theologians have developed an understanding of the term in relation to the authority of the pope. As a result of the First Vatican Council, the pope is said to be infallible when he speaks authoritatively from his bishop’s chair on matters of faith and morals. See Inerrancy of Scripture. Intelligent Design Theory A modern view that infers the reality of a divine Intelligence or Deity on the basis of the observation of apparent “design” or “complexity” within nature. This theory has been criticized because of its appeal to God as a direct, supernatural cause of apparent design or complexity in nature as opposed to understanding such matters scientifically, that is, as the result of natural, material causes in nature. Interdisciplinarity The quality of some academic disciplines (philosophy, theology, the humanities, etc.) to be related to and engaged with other academic disciplines.

Glossary of Terms

Israel (ancient Israel) Hebrew: “he who struggles with God.” The term is used in the Bible to refer initially to the patriarch Jacob (Gen. 32.28) who wrestled with a mysterious figure at Peniel. He is given the new name “Israel” after this experience. Jacob’s twelve sons also receive this name collectively, as do the twelve clans/tribes that bear the names of these sons of Jacob. Later the term Israel refers to just the ten northern tribes, in contrast to the two southern tribes that are called “Judah” (after the larger of the two). Elsewhere in the OT and NT the term refers to the whole people of God or (in the NT) to the Christian church. Judaism The religion of the Jewish people that developed after the time of the Babylonian exile (after 586 BC). The term derives from the larger of the two southern tribes in ancient Israel, Judah. Justification A legal term used within the NT (especially by Paul) to refer to God’s gracious forgiveness of sinners, their pardoning before God’s condemning judgment on account of Christ, and their being declared righteous by faith in him. The doctrine of justification has been the major issue that has divided Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians. Melanchthon called the doctrine of justification “the article on which the church stands or falls.” Kerygma Greek: “proclamation.” In the NT this term refers to both the act of preaching the gospel as well as the content of that proclamation. Law The law of God is understood in three basic ways in the Christian tradition. First, the law is equated with God’s eternal will for human beings, which God reveals through the human conscience and enforces through civil laws that protect human beings and punish evil doers. Some Christian theologians, but not all, discuss aspects of this initial understanding of the divine law under the categories of “natural law” and/or “the civil/political use of the law.” Second, the law of God is identified with the specific biblical legislation that has come through Moses and the legal traditions of ancient Israel (the OT Mosaic law in the time of ancient Israel’s nationhood). This Mosaic law is summarized in the Ten Commandments (which overlap with civil law, e.g., the laws against murder, stealing, etc.). Third, within the NT, “the law of Christ” or the law of Christian love (the love of God and the love of others, including one’s enemies) is distinct from both the Mosaic law and the divine law that works in the conscience and through civic law. According to Paul, because all human beings have fallen short of what God expects of them in his eternal will, the law of God “brings wrath”; it exposes them as sinners under the judgment of God. According to Luther, the principal use of the law is theological, namely, to drive sinners to Christ, since the law (however it is experienced) always accuses them before God and can only be silenced by faith in Christ. Luther stressed that Christ frees the sinner from the law and places him or her under the guidance of the Spirit, whose gifts take one beyond the demands of the law and fulfill “the law of Christ,” the law of love. For Calvin, whose position differs from Luther’s, the law of God does not always condemn the

651

652

Glossary of Terms

Christian (who remains a sinner unto death) but principally serves as a positive guide to the Christian life. For Calvin, the Christian is to be obedient to the law of God joyfully and freely. Lex orandi, lex credendi Latin: “the law of praying, the law of believing.” This expression seeks to summarize the connection between what one prays and what one believes. For example, what one believes about God shapes the language one uses in prayer and the liturgy, just as the language one uses in prayer and the liturgy conveys what one believes about God. Liberation theology A broad theological movement of human social liberation that emerged in South America and elsewhere after the late 1960s. All liberation theologies are contextual, that is, they get articulated within specific socioeconomic, political, and cultural contexts. Such theologies seek to respond critically against social and political oppression and to struggle for social justice on the basis of God’s “preferential option for the poor,” the prophets’ and Jesus’ criticisms of the rich and powerful, and the promise of God’s coming kingdom on earth. Literal sense The sense or meaning that the words (patterns of letters) have in a biblical text. Liturgy Greek: “public service.” Within Christianity the liturgy refers to the contents and shape of the divine service, culminating in the celebration of the Eucharist. It includes the invocation, prayers, hymns, psalms, Scripture readings, often a sermon or homily, and usually the Eucharist. Logos (the Logos) Greek: “Word,” “reason,” or “speech.” According to Jn 1.1ff., “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” The concept of the Logos was central to the development of Christology in the early Christian church. Jesus the Christ was acknowledged to be “the Word of God.” Debates centered on the relationship between the divine Logos and the human nature in Jesus. LORD See YHWH. Lord’s Supper See Eucharist. Love Within the Christian tradition a central teaching, perhaps the central teaching, is that God is love (1 Jn 4.7-8). The Christian good news has been summarized as God’s self-giving love and mercy for unlovable, undeserving sinners. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn 3.16). Christians are called by Christ and His Spirit to love others with the same love by which God loves the world in Christ, a self-giving

Glossary of Terms

love that serves the needs of others. Christ Jesus made the love and forgiveness of one’s enemies the key aspect of authentic love. Lower faculties Within the medieval university, the lower faculties were the seven liberal arts that were divided into the trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). These disciplines prepared one for the higher faculties (law, theology, and later medicine). Lutheran Church A confessional movement within the Western catholic tradition that subscribes to the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Small Catechism of Martin Luther, and other writings contained in the Book of Concord (1580). Magisterium Latin: “magister” = “teacher.” This term refers to the teaching office of the pope and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. Marks of the church These refer to signs by which one is able to recognize the character of the church as belonging to Christ, as being “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” to use the classic language from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Historically and traditionally, such “marks” or “signs” have included the teaching of the apostles as authoritatively contained in the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, the rule of faith as summarized in catholic and orthodox baptismal creeds and ecumenical decrees/creeds, orthodox bishoprics (especially those of the five central Christian patriarchs), orthodox liturgies, the sign of the cross, and the use of the Lord’s Prayer. The Lutheran Reformers in the sixteenth century taught that “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” is present “wherever the gospel is proclaimed and taught in its truth and purity” and the sacraments (of baptism and the Lord’s Supper) “are administered in accord with the gospel.” So the gospel is itself the chief mark of the church. Some Reformed Christians expanded that Lutheran understanding to include church discipline (excommunication) as a further mark. The Matriarchs (of the Old Testament) These were the great women figures in the early traditions of ancient Israel: Sarah (wife of Abraham), Rebekah (wife of Isaac), Leah and Rachel (wives of Jacob). Messiah Hebrew: “anointed one.” The Greek equivalent, Christos, also means “anointed one.” In the OT a messiah was one who was set apart for a special divine task (e.g., a priest or a king). Later the term was used more specifically for the king. After the collapse of the Davidic dynasty, there developed within ancient Israel the expectation of a future Davidic king, “the Messiah,” who would deliver the Jewish people from their oppressors and establish God’s reign. In the NT Jesus is identified as this Messiah or the Christ. Metanarrative Any attempt to provide a single narrative or story to account for the whole of reality. Within postmodern philosophy, people tend to be skeptical

653

654

Glossary of Terms

toward all such attempts since they tend to favor the powerful to the exclusion of the marginalized. Metaphysics Greek editors of the works of Aristotle gave this term to what he called “First Philosophy,” that deals with the study of “being” as “being.” Within the history of Western philosophy metaphysics explores the nature of ultimate reality or the first principles within reflection upon reality as a whole. Christian theology also addresses metaphysical questions but on the basis of special revelation. Method of correlation This way of doing systematic theology, classically expounded in the twentieth century by Paul Tillich (although he argued that theologians had been using this method since the time of the apostle Paul), dialectically relates “questions” and problems that arise from within one’s individual life and social setting (“the human situation”) with “answers” and “solutions” that come from divine revelation (“the Christian message”). The Roman Catholic theologian David Tracy has modified Tillich’s method by referring to the need for “mutually critical correlation,” wherein both “the situation” and “the message” criticize and inform each other. See Revisionist theology. Methodism That branch of Christendom that developed from the teaching and organizational efforts of John and Charles Wesley and their followers in the eighteenth century and later. Ministry Greek: “diakonia” = “service”; Latin: “ministerium” = “service.” Within the Christian tradition the ministry of Christ to a hurting and sinful world is the basis for all other Christian service. Everyone who is baptized into Christ is called to serve others in faithful love, bearing witness to Christ and the gospel in word and deed. According to Paul, the Holy Spirit gifts individuals with varying gifts of ministry/service: some are called to be apostles, others pastors and teachers, still others workers of miracles, and so on. What was dynamic and Spirit-oriented in the early years of Paul’s apostlic ministry later became more institutionalized and stable: specific offices of ministry developed in continuity with apostolic leadership, such as bishop/overseer, pastor/teacher/priest, deacon. These offices developed differently in Eastern and Western Christianity, especially regarding the authority of the bishop of Rome (papal primacy) and the marriage of priests, but both streams of Christian tradition insisted that “valid ordination” (validly setting authorizing) was necessary for public service in the church as a deacon, priest, and bishop. Within Protestantism, the principal form of ordained ministry remains the office of pastor who is authorized to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments in accord with the gospel. Modern theology This term has been used to describe many different forms of Christian theology since the time of the Protestant Reformation, but in general it applies to any theology that positively engages philosophical and scientific

Glossary of Terms

developments since the seventeenth century. “Modern” forms of theology tend to be critical of religious traditions that do not stand up to careful scrutiny and to be supportive of the use of one’s reason to uncover legitimate knowledge. Such forms of theology generally seek to allow the modern sciences to inform their theological understandings. Classic examples of twentieth-century modern Christian theologians are Tillich and Bultmann. See Method of correlation, Postliberal theology, Postmodern theology, and Revisionist theology. Monk Greek: “solitary one.” Within Christianity a monk is a man who has taken the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience and lives according to them within a monastic community. The term is most accurately applied to a hermit within a monastic community. His principal duty is to pray. Monotheism A modern term to describe the belief that there is only one, true and real God. All other gods are either idols of human invention or entities that are not truly God. Moral argument This argument for the existence of God has been set forth classically by Immanuel Kant. He held that moral reason requires the reality of God (along with freedom and immortality) so that each person’s level of virture can be properly adjudicated in the afterlife by the divine justice. Because wicked people often get away with their wickedness in this life and because righteous people often suffer at the hands of evil people, God is necessary to properly mete out justice in the afterlife. Myth Greek: “story.” Within popular usage a myth is an untruth, a false story, a legend, or an errant account of something. Within religious studies, however, a myth is simply a story about a god or gods or some religious matter that requires careful interpretation. Provided the genre is understood properly, a myth may convey profound spiritual or religious truth about human beings and their world. Natural knowledge of God The knowledge of God the Creator that is given through creation itself and human reflection upon it. This “natural knowledge” is the result of general revelation in distinction from special revelation. The natural knowledge of God may properly be described as philosophical theology, since it seeks to talk about God on the basis of nature and human reasoning about God on the basis of nature. Natural theology Thinking about God on the basis of general revelation apart from special revelation. Natural theology is the way people think about the natural knowledge of God given through creation itself and human reflection upon creation (general revelation). Necessary being That which must exist or whose nonexistence is inconceivable. Within Anselm’s so-called ontological argument God is the one necessary being whose nonexistence is inconceivable. All other beings that truly exist are contingent

655

656

Glossary of Terms

or dependent upon God for their being. According to Anselm a necessary being, whose nonexistence is inconceivable, is “greater than” a contingent being, whose nonexistence is conceivable. Since for Anselm God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” God must exist, since necessary being is greater than contingent being. Nestorianism Nestorius (fifth century) taught that Mary should not be called “the Mother of God.” He was accused of dividing Christ into two persons. Neurotheology A relatively new academic discipline that seeks to understand how human physiology and brain activity mediate (or perhaps create) religious beliefs and practices. Neurotheology seeks to explore the connections among physiology, the brain, spirituality, and religious belief. New Testament A “testament” is a will or written disposition, as in “last will and testament.” Within Christianity the expression “new testament” refers first to the statement of Jesus at his final meal with his disciples: “This is my blood of the new testament given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26.28). The author of Hebrews thus refers to Christ as “the mediator of a new testament” (better than “covenant”), since Christ as testator simply declares that those who believe in him will inherit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life (see Heb. 9.15ff.). As with a last will and testament, it only takes effect upon the death of the testator. In another sense, the writings that bear apostolic witness to Christ as this mediator of a new testament (or new covenant) are also called “The New Testament,” in contrast to the Hebrew Scriptures (“the Old Testament” or “old covenant”). Nicaea Site of the first ecumenical council (AD 325). The creed that emerged from this council declares the Logos that became incarnate in Jesus to be “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father, by whom all things were made.” See Homoousion. Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed The title that is given to the creed that was first set forth at the first ecumenical council in Nicaea (AD 325) and then further developed at the second ecumenical council in Constantinople (AD 381). Usually this creed is simply called “The Nicene Creed.” See Creed and Homoousion. NOMA Stephen Jay Gould’s acronym for “nonoverlapping magisteria,” the view which maintains that science and religion have independent domains of investigation. See also Two-language theory of science and religion. Nondenominational churches Independent Christian churches that have no external, formal relationship with any other Christian church body.

Glossary of Terms

Nun In a general sense a nun is a woman who is a member of a Christian religious order. In a more specific sense a nun is a woman who has taken a vow of chastity, poverty, and obedience and who lives in an enclosed religious order in which outsiders are not permitted. Old Testament The traditional term that Christians use for the Hebrew or Jewish Bible (which, for the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communities, also includes the OT Apocrypha). For Protestant Christians the Old Testament is normally limited to the thirty-nine books that are found in the Hebrew Bible. See Hebrew Bible. Omnipotence A traditional attribute of God that affirms God to be “all powerful” or having power and authority over all things. This attribute, as Christians understand it, does not mean God is the direct cause of every event or the cause of evil, nor does it mean that God can do what is self-contradictory. Omniscience A traditional attribute of God that affirms God to be “all knowing” or having perfect knowledge. Ontological argument The a priori argument of Anselm to demonstrate the existence of God on the basis of the definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This argument presupposes that for God to be “perfect being” God must exist, since to exist would be more perfect than not to exist. Orthodox/Orthodoxy Greek: “correct praise” or “correct teaching.” The term orthodox within Christianity refers to that which is correct or true, in contrast to that which is heretical or false. Orthodoxy generally refers to those Eastern churches that are in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul). Panentheism Greek: “God is in everything.” This position affirms that God both pervades and transcends all finite reality. Pantheism Greek: “all is God” or “God is everything.” This position affirms that everything as a totality is God or one with God. This position conflicts with orthodox Christian theology that teaches God is distinct from created reality and transcendent to it. Paraclete Greek: “advocate” or “defense attorney.” This is the term that is used in the Gospel of John for the Holy Spirit. Paranesis Greek: “exhortation” or “counsel.” NT scholars use this term to refer to the moral exhortations that are found in the apostolic writings.

657

658

Glossary of Terms

Parousia Greek: “coming” or “presence.” This term is used in the NT in reference to the future coming of the risen Christ, when he will come again to judge the living and the dead. Pastor Latin: “shepherd.” This is a term used by Lutheran Christians and some other Protestants to refer to their clergy. Patriarch Greek: “father.” This is title that is used for the bishops of the five chief centers of early Christianity: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome. The patriarchs (of the Old Testament) These were the three great forefathers in ancient Israel: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The term also applies to the twelve sons of Jacob and their tribes. Patriarchy Greek: “rule of the father.” This term is used by theologians to describe the authority of men over women and the ideas used to justify that authoritative structure. Patristics Greek: “fathers.” That branch of historical theology that examines Christian, postapostolic thinkers from the second century into the early medieval period. Pelagianism Pelagius (who lived in the late fourth and early fifth centuries) taught that even after the fall humans retained the ability to avoid sin without the aid of divine grace. Pentecostal churches Churches founded in the twentieth century whose members believe in the ongoing gifts of the Holy Spirit that were poured out initially “on the day of Pentecost” (Acts 2.1ff.). They especially focus on spontaneous worship and the gifts of “speaking in tongues,” spiritual healing, exorcism, and prophecy. Phenomenology Greek: “appearance.” The term was first used by Kant to refer to the “science of phenomena,” that which appears to the senses. Later it was used by Hegel to refer to the process by which Spirit develops from sense experience to absolute knowledge. More recently, the term was employed by Edmund Husserl and those influenced by him (e.g., Ricoeur) in reference to the discovery and analysis of essences and essential meanings. Philosophical theology Broadly speaking, philosophical theology addresses questions that arise in the philosophy of religion and metaphysics (e.g., the question of God, the nature of evil, the question of human freedom, etc.). For Schleiermacher, philosophical theology is that branch of theology which delineates the reality of the Christian church and defines the essence of Christian faith. Within the present

Glossary of Terms

book philosophical theology is undertaken within the subdiscipline of fundamental theology. Pluralism Within religious studies “pluralism” refers to the diversity of religious groups, beliefs, truth claims, and practices within the world and to the tensions and contradictions that arise when one compares and contrasts specific religious beliefs, truth claims, and practices with other specific religious beliefs, truth claims, and practices. Pneumatology The theological investigation into the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Polytheism The belief in many gods. Pope Latin: “father.” A title that was used in early Christianity for bishops. In the East it was eventually restricted to the bishop of Alexandria. In the West it was eventually restricted to the bishop of Rome. Among Roman Catholics, the pope is the supreme head of the universal church on earth. That claim is rejected by both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians. Positivism A philosophical worldview that maintains that any meaningful assertion must be capable of scientific verification. Postliberal theology The name given to a theological movement that was influenced by Karl Barth and centered at Yale Divinity School and Duke Divinity School (after the mid-1980s). This movement criticized the liberal Protestant orientation to human religious experience and emphasized the priority of the biblical narratives to frame theological understanding. Postmodern theology This term has been used to describe many different forms of Christian theology since the last decades of the twentieth century, but in general it applies to any theology that is critical of the intrusion of philosophy into Christian theology, skeptical regarding the positive contributions of the sciences to Christian theological understanding, and are convinced that the notion of “autonomous reason” is an illusion. Postmodern theology might best be described as an attitude that is skeptical regarding all truth claims, pesimistic about technological advances, keely atuned to the abuses of power by human beings in their interactions with others, and suspicious of all “grand narratives.” Postliberal theology is but one example of postmodern theologies. See Method of correlation, Postliberal theology, Postmodern theology, and Revisionist theology. Practical theology That subdiscipline of theology that addresses how theology is to be applied in the life of the church. In this book, it addresses ecclesial studies (specific Christian communities and their impact in the world) and theological ethics.

659

660

Glossary of Terms

Praxis Greek: “practice.” Within recent Christian theology praxis refers to the mutual interaction between theory and practice, thinking and action, in relation to specific contextual problems. Praxis has played a key methodological role in liberation theology, which stresses the concrete, practical consequences of theology in relation to social and political oppression and God’s “preferential option for the poor,” rather than theoretical theological understandings articulated in isolation from social realities. Presbyter (Elder) Greek: “old man.” The earliest Jerusalem church was governed by a board of presbyters or elders. The apostle Paul appointed elders in the churches he founded. As such, they seem to have been identical to the “overseers” or bishops in those places. Later the term bishop was used only of the president of these boards of elders or presbyters. Priest The term is a contraction of the Greek word presbyter. See Presbyter. In the OT a priest is one who makes sacrifices. Within ancient Israelite religion the high priest alone could enter the temple on the Day of Atonement to make sacrifice for the people. In the NT Jesus is presented as a type of high priest since his sacrifice on the cross makes atonement between God and sinners. After the second century there developed in Christianity the idea that a presbyter who celebrates the Eucharist offers a sacrifice and thus the term priest was applied to a presbyter. Process theology A twentieth-century theological movement, influenced by the philosophical reflections of Alfred North Whitehead and modern evolutionary science, which stresses the changing nature of human beings and the world and maintains that God is also undergoing development and change through God’s responsive relationship with the world. Prophet One who claims to speak for God. In the OT one finds seers (who know the future) and ecstatics (who speak divine words that are not their own). In later Israelite prophecy stress is laid on the intelligible word or message of God that is delivered through the authentic and true prophets. False prophets speak on their own authority and their words do not come to pass. The NT claims that Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT prophecies about the Messiah. The NT itself bears witness to prophets in early Christianity, both men and women. Q An as yet undiscovered source document (mostly sayings of Jesus) for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (but not Mark). It is called “Q” (short for “Quelle,” the German word for “source”), since German scholars first developed the two-source theory: the authors/editors of Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as their principal sources. The four-source theory recognizes at least two other sources: a third source, labeled “M” (for material only found in Matthew), and a fourth source, labeled “L” (for material only found in Luke).

Glossary of Terms

Quest for the historical Jesus The scholarly efforts to discover the “real” historical Jesus “behind” the canonical Gospels. Reconciliation This refers to one way in which the Christian gospel is presented in the NT. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5.19). Within the Roman Catholic Church “reconciliation” is a recent way of labeling the sacrament that used to be called “penance.” Redemption See Salvation. Reformed Although Martin Luther and others were important sixteenth-century reformers in the Western Catholic Church, the term Reformed usually refers to the Protestant tradition that traces its heritage back to John Calvin and his reforms. The term Reformed is usually used today instead of Calvinist. Regula fidei See Rule of faith. Religion A notoriously difficult term to define, the word religion was coined in the seventeenth century. In general it refers to complex phenomena connected to peoples’ worldviews, ultimate meanings, symbolic expressions, communal myths and rituals, “moods and motivations” (Geertz), ethical behaviors, beliefs, and practices. Some religions are theistic, others not. All religions have a communal aspect, which a possible etymology for the term religion (religare = “to bind together”) suggests. Religious experience Any human experience that gives rise to religious feeling, thought, and behavior. Religious pluralism See Pluralism. Religious studies An academic discipline that studies world religions, religious experience, and other religious phenomena. While the discipline may involve comparative theology (comparing and contrasting ideas and practices across multiple religions), religious studies tends to bracket out all particular theological commitments in favor of the pursuit of neutral observation and description. Repentance This refers to the act of turning back or returning to God (as in the OT understanding) or changing one’s mind to get in line with the coming kingdom of God (as in the NT preaching of Jesus). Throughout the history of Christianity repentance involves human contrition for sin and the desire for divine forgiveness and mercy. The biblical presupposition of repentance is human sin and alienation from God and the need for sinners to repent. The divine response to repentance is forgiveness, mercy, and love.

661

662

Glossary of Terms

Resurrection Christians believe that God raised the enfleshed, crucified Jesus from the dead as a vindication of his life and ministry and to make him Lord over all creation. On the basis of the NT witness to the resurrection of Jesus, Christians believe in “the resurrection of the dead” (as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed states) or “the resurrection of the body” (as the Apostles’ Creed states). This teaching is different from the Greek philosophical idea of the immortality of the soul, which focuses on disembodied souls. Traditional Christian teaching about the bodily resurrection, based on the witness to Jesus’ own resurrection, holds the promise that God will raise people from the dead and give them new life in God’s new creation. This teaching seeks to affirm the abiding significance of embodied human beings and, by extension, God’s love and compassion for all material being (the whole of creation). Revealed theology See Special revelation. Revelation See General revelation and Special revelation. Revisionist theology Forms of theology, either Roman Catholic (e.g., David Tracy) or Protestant (e.g., Paul Tillich, Gordan Kaufman), that seek to keep theology always open to revision in light of new knowledge and experience. Roman Catholic Church While Roman Catholics trace their church heritage back to Jesus through the church that was founded at Rome and led by the bishop there (the head of the Western Catholic Church), the Roman Catholic Church embraces all those Christians who are in communion with the bishop of Rome (the pope) and who adhere to all of the conciliar decisions of this hierarchical church, especially those from the Council of Trent and the two Vatican councils. Rule of faith (regula fidei) A second-century phrase that describes the essential and normative content of Christian faith as taught and handed down by the apostles. Within early Christianity this rule helped Christians to interpret the prophetic and apostolic writings that would eventually be included in the OT and NT and to criticize understandings that were held to be heretical. Sacraments The term sacrament (Latin: “public oath” or “public act”) is not found in the Christian Scriptures. It is a word that comes to be used first in the Western catholic tradition and then in Eastern Orthodoxy. It refers to special rites or rituals that convey God’s grace. Augustine defined a sacrament as a visible sign of an invisible grace. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions will come to recognize seven sacraments: Baptism, the Eucharist, confession of sins (called “penance” in the medieval Catholic Church and today called “reconciliation”), confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and the anointing of the sick/dying with oil. Most Protestant churches acknowledge only two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper). Some Lutherans also refer to confession and ordination as sacraments.

Glossary of Terms

Salvation The Christian term for what Christ Jesus accomplishes for sinful human beings. The Western catholic tradition emphasizes that Christ “saves” people from their sins, from death, from the judgement of God, and from the power of Satan. The Eastern Orthodox tradition emphasizes that Christ saves people from death and eternal judgment. Schism Greek: “tear” or “rent.” This is formal or willful exclusion or separation from the church. Scholasticism A medieval way of academic inquiry into biblical teaching by means of questioning, criticizing, and debating theological opinions. Sixteenth-century humanists criticized this method for its academic narrow-mindedness and favored a more literary and historical approach to traditional theological matters. Scientific imperialism A term coined by Ted Peters to refer to the view that the natural sciences can explain all of reality (including religious beliefs and practices) fully on the basis of a naturalistic, materialistic, and antitheological method. Scientism This is a view similar to scientific imperialism. It holds that science alone can uncover what is true about reality. In this view, the natural sciences are the only source of authentic “knowledge.” Scripture Latin: “writing.” The term Scripture within Christianity refers to writings that are held to be sacred and authoritative for faith and life. Scripture interprets Scripture This classic phrase sets forth the important hermeneutical principle that clearer passages in the Bible ought to be used to shed light on less clear passages. For Lutheran Christians, the clearest passages of Scripture are those that teach the gospel concerning Jesus the Christ. Secondary causation According to Thomas Aquinas, God can be said to cause events (“secondary causation”) even though science can see how those same events are caused by natural causes (“primary causation”). Secularization Latin (saeculum): “world.” This refers to the process of human cultures and human beings becoming more “worldly,” independent, free, and autonomous in the wake of the Enlightenment. Self-revelation of God The Christian teaching that God shares himself and even gives himself through his Word (the Logos) and Spirit to be trusted, loved, and followed by human beings. The self-revelation of God is God’s self-giving, which Christians believe has occurred most decisively in and through the person of Jesus, the Word of God incarnate.

663

664

Glossary of Terms

Septuagint This is a term used for various versions of the Hebrew Bible in Greek translation. Seven deadly sins A medieval list of mortal or deadly sins: pride, covetousness, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth. Also called the “seven cardinal sins.” Seven liberal arts A medieval grouping of academic disciplines that formed the basis for university education. They were divided into the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). It was only after completing a degree in the liberal arts that one could proceed to the higher faculties of law or theology (or, later, medicine). Sin Within Christian teaching sin refers to both a human condition (original sin) and to specific acts of human beings (actual sin) that are contrary to the eternal will of God. The will of God is expressed through the divine law, which is experienced by every human being, principally through their conscience and moral sense. The classic summary of this law is the Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized as “love of God” and “love of neighbor.” Sin manifests itself in various ways in human life and society (see Seven Deadly Sins) but all sin can be traced back to a basic and fundamental distrust of God, which leads to despair or pride before God. The Christian message summons people to repent of their sins, to confess them to God, and to trust in the mercy and forgiveness of God through the salvation accomplished by Jesus. Son of God A title that is used of several biblical figures (e.g., Adam), but especially of Jesus. Son of Man A biblical designation that appears in the OT but is especially applied to Jesus in the NT. Soteriology Greek: soteria = “salvation.” Soteriology is the study of the doctrine of salvation in Christian theology. Special revelation In contrast to general revelation, which is the natural knowledge of God that the NT teaches all people have on the basis of creation and their reasoning about it, special revelation is the knowledge of God that comes from God’s historical self-giving. This knowledge comes through specific historic events and figures, culminating in the coming of Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, as these are attested to in Holy Scripture. Subjectivism A view in theology and philosophy that maintains that all knowledge is merely personal and relative. Succession of bishops See Apostolic succession.

Glossary of Terms

Synoptic Gospels Greek: synopsis = “view together with.” The Synoptic Gospels are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. If one views these three Gospel narratives alongside each other one sees that they generally follow the same outline and contain a number of the same pericopes (frequently modified from one Gospel to the next). Approximately 90 percent of the material in the Gospel of John is unique to John, so it is not a Synoptic Gospel. Synoptic problem The modern and contemporary problem for explaining why the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) have so much in common, in many cases verbatim agreement, and yet are so different from one another. The most common solution to this problem has been the so-called four-source theory. According to this theory, Mark was composed first and later served as the basic outline for the other two Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke. They in turn drew upon a source they had in common (see Q), while also drawing upon material that appears only in Matthew (“M Source”) and only in Luke (“L Source”). Systematic theology Systematic theology explores the most pressing methodological issues in Christian theology and seeks to set forth a coherent summary of the principal doctrines or teachings of Christian theology in and for the present situation. Teleological argument Greek: “telos” = “goal,” “end,” “purpose.” This argument for the reality of God is made on the basis of the detection of purpose, design, and order in the universe. This is also called “the argument from design.” Theism Greek: “theos.” The general belief in God. Theistic evolution The view that God the Creator in some way is involved in the mechanisms that drive evolution in nature. Theodicy This term combines the Greek word for God (“theos”) with the Greek word for justice” (“dikē”). The term, coined by the Lutheran theologian and mathematician Leibniz in the early eighteenth century, has been used in the modern period to refer to various attempts to justify God in view of suffering and evil. These attempts have been responses to the classic question of theodicy, namely, “If God is perfectly good and perfectly omnipotent, why is there evil and suffering in the world?” Theologian of the cross One who thinks about God on the basis of reflection on the suffering and death of Christ on the cross. This expression was made popular by Martin Luther in his Heidelberg Debate (1518). Luther contrasted a theologian of the cross, who believes and understands God in accord with God’s self-giving revelation in the cross of Christ, with a theologian of glory, who he thought speculates about the nature of God apart from this revelation of God in Christ. Luther accused most medieval Catholic theologians of being theologians of glory.

665

666

Glossary of Terms

Theological anthropology A theological understanding of human beings, their nature and condition, and their goal in God’s plan of salvation. Theological encyclopedia This term is used in two different ways in Christian theology. On the one hand, it refers to a brief account of the theological disciplines and their problems. On the other hand, it refers to multivolume projects that seek to give a complete account of issues and topics in theology. This book is an example of an attempt at the former, while the multivolume Religion Past and Present is an example of the latter. See Encyclopedia. Theology (theologia) Greek: “speaking or thinking of God” (“theos” = god; “logos” = “word, speech, thought”). Theology is any reflection on God or gods. Christian academic theology seeks to develop a systematic, historical, and practical understanding of God as revealed in the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. Theology properly is “thinking about God,” but theology often thinks about other matters (e.g., human beings, the world) in relation to God or “under the aspect of God” (Aquinas). Theophany Greek: “appearance of God.” An example of a theophany in the Christian Bible is the manifestation of God (or God’s “backside”) to Moses in the OT. Theosis/Theopoiēsis See Divinization. Tradition Within Christian theology this refers to the “handing on” or “passing over” of Christian teaching and practices. See 1 Cor. 15.1ff., where Paul defines the gospel about Jesus’ death and resurrection as a tradition. Roman Catholics and Protestants disagree about the role of “tradition” in theological reflection, but both of these Christian traditions acknowledge the importance of “tradition” in Christian teaching. Transcendence A term that the philosopher Karl Jaspers used in place of “God” to refer to that dimension of human existence that raises questions about one’s life as a whole. More recently the American sociologist of religion Peter Berger has used the term to refer to that which is beyond this world without necessarily restricting it to “God.” In Christian theology, the transcendence of God means that God is beyond that which God creates. Trinity A central Christian affirmation about God is that God is “triune.” There is only one God and yet this one God has revealed himself to be the Father who sends forth his Logos (the Son of God) into the world, who bears witness to the Father and who promises the gift of the Holy Spirit, “whom the Father will send in my name.” The dogma of the Trinity developed over a long period of time, as Christians reflected upon the life and teachings of Jesus, his witness to God the Father, and the experience of the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Christian theologians make a distinction between the “economic Trinity,” which refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their work of creation and salvation, and the “immanent

Glossary of Terms

Trinity,” which refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their eternal and essential relationship with one another “from all eternity.” Two books of nature and Scripture The traditional Christian view that God reveals himself both through the natural world and through Scripture and that these two revelations, properly understood, complement each other. Each can be understood to be like a book that one interprets. On the one hand, nature or the universe is understood and interpreted to be the orderly, intelligible, substantial creation of God. On the other hand, the Scriptures bear witness to God’s creative and redemptive activity in history. Moreover, the knowledge that one receives from the study of nature can be brought into creative relationship with the knowledge of God that is given through Scripture, and vice versa. Two-language theory of science and religion This is a view of the relationship between science and religion which holds that religion speaks about about “values” and “morals,” and science speaks about “facts.” Such speakings are understood to be two different languages that may or might not be translatable into the language of the other. Recent thinkers who have set forth this theory include the theologian Langdon Gilkey and the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. See also NOMA. Uncaused cause A philosophical phrase that is used for God in arguments based on the distinction between contingent being and necessary Being. God alone is the uncaused cause of contingent being. Unmoved mover Another philosophical phrase that people use for God in arguments based on the observation of motion. According to Aquinas’s first way, nothing is completely the source of its own movement or change. From this, Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an unmoved mover who first put things in motion. This is God. Verbal inspiration The teaching that the very words of Scripture are divinely inspired (“God-breathed”). Word of God See Logos. Wrath (Divine Wrath) The biblical teaching that God is angry with sin and judges it with divine judgment. YHWH (“The LORD”) The so-called “tetragrammaton” (four-letter word) is the Hebrew word for the proper name of God. Normally Jews and Christians do not attempt to say this name out of respect for it and in view of the Second Commandment (“Do not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”). Instead when they come across this name in Scripture they will say another word, the Hebrew word for “Lord.” In most Christian Bibles this divine name is rendered as “LORD.”

667

Select Bibliography

A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies. Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. St. Louis: CTCR, 1967. Achtemeier, Paul J., ed. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985. Adler, Mortimer. How to Prove There Is a God: Mortimer J. Adler’s Thoughts about God. Edited by Dzugan. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 2012. Ahlstrom, Sydney E. “What’s Lutheran about Higher Education?—A Critique.” Papers and Proceedings of the 60th Annual Convention, 8–16. Washington, DC: Lutheran Educational Conference of North America, 1974. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament, 2nd edn. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Alexander, Denis R., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. Biology and Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Allen, E. L. The Self and Its Hazards: A Guide to the Thought of Karl Jaspers. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950. Alston, William P. Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2nd edn. Basic Books, 2011. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, 1985. Alter, Robert. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. New York: Norton, 2004. Alter, Robert. Genesis. New York: Norton, 1996. Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, 3 vols. New York: Norton, 2019. Alter, Robert, and Frank Kermode, eds. The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Alterman, Eric. It Ain’t No Sin to Be Glad You’re Alive: The Promise of Bruce Springsteen. Boston: BackBay Books, 2001. Althaus, Paul. Fact and Faith in the Kerygma of Today. Translated by David Cairns. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959. Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Anselm of Canterbury. Basic Writings, 2nd edn. Translated by S. N. Deane. Introduction by Charles Hartshorne. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1962.

Select Bibliography

d’Aquili, Eugene G., and Andrew B. Newberg. The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited by Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941. Arndt, Johann. True Christianity. Edited and translated by Peter Erb. New York: Paulist, 1979. Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1993. Ashbrook, James, and C. R. Albright. The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1997. Augustine of Hippo. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2 vols. Translated by John Hammond Taylor. New York: Newman, 1982. Augustine of Hippo. Soliloquies. In The Fathers of the Church, vol. 5. Edited by Ludwig Schopp, 332–426. Translated by Thomas F. Gilligan. New York: Cima, 1948. Augustine of Hippo. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, 41 vols. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1990. Aulén, Gustav. The Faith of the Christian Church, 4th edn. Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom and G. Everett Arden. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1948. Bacon, Francis. The Essays. London: Haviland, 1625. Bailey, James L., and Lyle D. Vander Broek. Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Baillie, John, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Baillie, John, ed. Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and Grace” by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the reply “No!” by Dr. Karl Barth. Translated by Peter Fraenkel. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Baker, Julien. “Rejoice.” Sprained Ankle. Matador B01N0ZA80Z, 2017, compact disk. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, 7 vols. Translated by Brian McNeil, Andrew Louth, and Erasmo Leiva Merikakis. New York: Crossroad, 1982–9. Barbour, Ian. Issues in Science and Religion. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Barbour, Ian. Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures 1989–1991, vol. 1. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990. Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997. Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000. Barr, James. Old and New in Interpretation. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Barr, James. “Revelation through History in the OT and in Modern Theology.” Interpretation 17 (1963): 193–205. Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Barry, Wendell. What Are People For? New York: North Point, 1990.

669

670

Select Bibliography

Barth, Hans-Martin. The Theology of Martin Luther: A Critical Assessment. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, 4 vols in 13, plus index volume. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley, G. T. Thomson, T. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnston, J. L. M. Haire, J. C. Campbell, Iain Wilson, J. Strathearn, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, R. J. Ehrlich, Harold Knight, J. K. S. Reid, R. A. Stewart, and R. H. Fuller. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936–77. Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns, 6th edn. London: Oxford University Press, 1933. Barth, Karl. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. Translated by Grover Foley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Barth, Karl. “Rudolf Bultmann: An Attempt to Understand Him.” In Kerygma and Myth, vol. 2. Edited by Hans Werner Bartsch, 82–132. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller. London: SPCK, 1962. Barth, Karl. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Translated by Clarence K. Pott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Barth, Karl. The Word of God and the Word of Man. Translated by Douglas Horton. New York: Harper & Row, 1957. Bass, Dorothy, and Susan R. Briehl, eds. On Our Way: Christian Practices for Living a Whole Life. Nashville: Upper Room Books, 2010. Bass, Dorothy, and Susan R. Briehl, eds. Practicing Our Faith, 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Hersey in Early Christianity. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Translated by Paul J. Achtemeier, Stephen Benko, Howard N. Bream, Robert F. Evans, David M. Hay, Robert A. Kraft, Gerhard Krodel, John J. O’Rourke, John E. Steely, David C. Steinmetz, and Robert L. Wilken. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Bayer, Oswald. Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Bayer, Oswald. “A Public Mystery.” Lutheran Quarterly 26 (Summer 2012): 125–41. Bayer, Oswald. Theology the Lutheran Way. Edited and translated by Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes (Lutheran Quarterly Books). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Beck, James R., and Bruce Demarest. The Human Person in Theology and Psychology: A Biblical Anthropology for the Twenty-first Century. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005. Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press, 1975. Becker, Matthew L. “Christ in the University: The Vision of Schlink.” The Cresset 80 (Easter 2017): 12–21. Becker, Matthew L. “Edmund Schlink: Ecumenical Theology.” In Generous Orthodoxies: Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology. Edited by Paul Silas Petersen, 23–41. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020. Becker, Matthew L. “Edmund Schlink’s Ecumenical Dogmatics.” In Ecumenical and Confessional Writings, vol. 2. Ecumenical Dogmatics by Edmund Schlink. Edited by Matthew L. Becker, 37–59. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023.

Select Bibliography

Becker, Matthew L., ed. Nineteenth-Century Lutheran Theologians. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Becker, Matthew L. “The Scandal of the LCMS Mind.” The Daystar Journal. Summer 2005. https://theday​star​jour​nal.com/the-scan​dal-of-the-lcms-mind/ (accessed June 10, 2023). Becker, Matthew L. “Schweitzer’s Quests for Jesus and Paul.” Concordia Journal 28 (October 2002): 409–30. Becker, Matthew L. The Self-Giving God and Salvation History: The Trinitarian Theology of Johannes von Hofmann. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Becker, Matthew L. “The Shape of Theology as a University Wissenschaft: Schleiermacher’s Reflection in Hofmann’s Theological Encyclopedia.” Papers of the Nineteenth-Century Theology Group 37 (American Academy of Religion) (November 2006): 103–27. Becker, Matthew L. “Werner Elert (1885–1954).” In Twentieth-Century Lutheran Theologians. Edited by Mark C. Mattes, 249–302. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Begbie, Jeremy S. Beholding the Glory: The Incarnation through the Arts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Begbie, Jeremy S. A Peculiar Orthodoxy: Reflections on Theology and the Arts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Begbie, Jeremy S. Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts. New York: T&T Clark, 1991. Behe, Michael. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Free Press, 1996. Bellah, Robert. Religion in Human Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Bergen, Doris. Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich, 2nd edn. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Berger, Peter. The Desecularization of the World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Berger, Peter. A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. New York: Anchor, 1970. Berger, Peter. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. Bertram, Robert. “How a Lutheran Does Theology: Some Clues from the Lutheran Confessions.” In Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations. Edited by William G. Weinhauer and Robert L. Wietelman, 73–87. Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1981. Bertram, Robert. “Informal Remarks on the Historicity of Adam.” In The Promising Tradition, 2nd edn. Edited by Edward Schroeder and Robert Bertram, 41v–41x. St. Louis: Concordia Seminary in Exile, 1974. Bertram, Robert. “Review Symposium on Revelation and Theology: The Gospel as Narrated Promise by Ronald Thiemann.” Dialog 26 (Winter 1987): 69–71. Betz, Hans Dieter, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel, eds. Religion Past and Present, 13 vols. New York: Brill, 2009–13.

671

672

Select Bibliography

Bird, D. L., and Simon G. Smith, eds. Theology and Religious Studies in Higher Education. New York: Continuum, 2009. Black, Edwin. War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Dialog, 2012. Boff, Leonardo, and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology. Translated by Paul Burns. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987. Bonaventure. Breviloquium. Edited by Dominic V. Monti. Vol. 9 of the Works of St. Bonaventure. Edited by Robert J. Karris. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 2005. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Berlin: 1932–1933. Vol. 12 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Edited by Larry Rasmussen. Translated by Isabel Best and David Higgins. Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 2009. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. Vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Edited by John W. De Gruchy. Translated by Isabel Best, Lisa E. Dahill, Reinhard Krauss, and Nancy Lukens. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Bonnet, Charles. The Contemplation of Nature. London: Longman, 1766. Book of Common Prayer. New York: Church Hymnal Association, 1979. The Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Louisville: Office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), 1999. Borg, Marcus. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006. Borg, Marcus. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Bornkamm, Günther. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 1. Translated by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Bouma-Prediger, Steven. For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, 2nd edn. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Bowker, John. Why Religions Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Boyer, C. B. A. A History of Mathematics, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley, 1968. Boyer, Ernest. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson, eds. Christian Dogmatics, 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Bradley, Ian. Following the Celtic Way: A New Assessment of Celtic Christianity. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2018. Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther, 3 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985–92. Brondos, David A. “On the Vital Role of Theology Today.” Dialog 50 (Fall 2011): 221–2. Brooks, Arthur C. “The Satisfaction Trap.” The Atlantic (March 2022): 22–30. Brooks, David. The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life. New York: Random House, 2019.

Select Bibliography

Brown, Frank Burch. Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste: Aesthetics in Religious Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Brown, Frank Burch. Religious Aesthetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Brown, Joanne Carlson, and Carole R. Bohn, eds. Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique. New York: Pilgrim, 1989. Brown, Peter C. Listening for God: Malamud, O’Connor, Updike, and Morrison. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2020. Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Browning, Don S., and Terry Cooper. Religious Thought and Modern Psychologies, 2nd edn. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Browning, Don S. Reviving Christian Humanism: The New Conversation on Spirituality, Theology, and Psychology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988. Bruce, F. F. New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Brueggemann, Walter. The Bible Makes Sense. Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s, 1977. Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: John Knox/Westminster, 2003. Brunner, Daniel L., Jennifer L. Butler, and A. J. Swoboda. Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology: Foundations in Scripture, Theology, History, and Praxis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Buckley, Michael J. At the Origins of Modern Atheism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Bultmann, Rudolf. Faith and Understanding. Edited by Robert W. Funk. Translated by Louise Pettibone Smith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Edited by G. R. BeasleyMurray. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Bultmann, Rudolf. History and Eschatology. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1957. Bultmann, Rudolf. History of the Synoptic Tradition. Rev. edn. Translated by John Marsh. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. Translated by Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress Lantero. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934. Bultmann, Rudolf. Kerygma and Myth, 2 vols. Edited by Hans Werner Bartsch. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller. London: SPCK, 1957, 1962. Bultmann, Rudolf. New Testament & Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Edited and translated by Schubert M. Ogden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1951–5. Bultmann, Rudolf. What Is Theology? Edited by Eberhard Jüngel and Klaus W. Müller. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Burckhardt, Jacob. The Greeks and Greek Civilization. Edited by Oswyn Murray. Translated by Sheila Stern. New York: St. Martin’s, 1998.

673

674

Select Bibliography

Burge, Ryan P. The Nones. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021. Burkett, Delbert. An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Burtchaell, James T. The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from their Christian Churches. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (four books in two volumes). Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. The Library of Christian Classics, vols 20–1. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Cameron, Euan. Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches’ Past. New York: Blackwell, 2005. Campbell, Gordon. Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611–2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Campenhausen, Hans von. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Cantrell, Michael A. “Must a Scholar of Religion Be Methodologically Atheistic or Agnostic?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 84 (June 2016): 373–400. Carter, Jimmy. Faith: A Journey for All. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018. The Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Sadlier, 1994. Cavanaugh, William T., and James K. A. Smith, eds. Evolution and the Fall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Chadwick, Henry. “Philosophical Tradition and the Self.” In Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. Edited by G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar, 60–81. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Chapman, Audrey R. Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics at the Frontiers of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Charlesworth, Brian, and Deborah Charlesworth. Evolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Chemnitz, Martin. An Examination of the Council of Trent, 4 vols. Translated by Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia, 1986. Childs, Brevard. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Chilton, Bruce. Resurrrection Logic: How Jesus’ First Followers Believed God Raised Him from the Dead. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2019. Chopp, Rebecca. The Power to Speak: Feminism, Language, God. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Chopp, Rebecca, and Sheila Davaney, eds. Horizons in Feminist Theology: Identity, Tradition and Norms. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997. Clark, Kelly James, and Justin L. Barrett. “Reidian Religious Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79 (September 2011): 639–75. The Cloud of Unknowing. Edited by James Walsh. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1981. Coakley, Sarah. “Shaping the Field: A Transatlantic Perspective.” In Fields of Faith: Theology and Religious Studies for the Twenty-first Century. Edited by David

Select Bibliography

F. Ford, Ben Quash, and Janet Martin Soskice, 39–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Collier, Andrew. Critical Realism. London: Verso, 1993. Collins, Francis. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press, 2006. Collins, Robin. “The Teleological Argument.” In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, 202–81. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009. Conee, Earl, and Theodore Sider. Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005. Congar, Yves. “Christian Theology.” In Encylopedia of Religion, 15 vols, 2nd edn. Edited by Lindsay Jones, 14.455–64. New York: Thomson Gale, 2004. Connolly, Peter. Approaches to the Study of Religion. New York: Continuum, 2001. Cooper, Terry. Don Browning and Psychology. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2011. Cooper, Terry. Paul Tillich and Psychology: Historic and Contemporary Explorations in Theology, Psychotherapy, and Ethics. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2006. Cooper, Terry. Reinhold Niebuhr and Psychology: The Ambiguities of the Self. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009. Cooper-White, Pamela. The Psychology of Christian Nationalism: Why People Are Drawn In, and How to Talk across the Divide. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2022. Craig, Edward, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 10 vols. New York: Routledge, 2000. Craig, William Lane, and J. P. Moreland, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009. Crews, Frederick C. “Saving Us from Darwin.” The New York Review of Books, October 18, 2001. https://www.nybo​oks.com/artic​les/2001/10/04/sav​ing-us-from-dar​win/ (accessed June 10, 2023). Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. Crouter, Richard. Friedrich Schleiermacher: Between Enlightenment and Romanticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Crystal, David. Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Cullmann, Oscar. Salvation in History. Translated by Sidney G. Sowers. London: SCM, 1967. Dalrymple, G. Brent. The Age of the Earth. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1994. Daly, Mary. Beyond God the Father. Boston: Beacon, 1973. Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn. Based on Walter Bauer’s Greichischdeutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literaur, 6th edn. Translated by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

675

676

Select Bibliography

Darwin, Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. Edited by Nora Barlow. London: Collins, 1958. Darwin, Charles. Life and Letters, 2 vols. Edited by Francis Darwin. London: Murray, 1888. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Prometheus, 1991. Davies, Brian. The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Davies, Paul C. The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999. Davies, Paul C. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. Davies, Paul C. The Mind of God. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. Davies, Paul C. “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science.” In Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator. Edited by John Marks Templeton, 44–56. New York: Continuum, 1994. Davis, Stephen T., Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, eds. The Resurrection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. New York: Basic Books, 1995. Dawn, Marva J. Reaching Out without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for This Urgent Time. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Deane-Drummond, Celia. Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Deane-Drummond, Celia. Eco-Theology. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2008. Dembski, William, ed. Mere Creation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998. Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Viking, 2006. Denzey, Nicola. The Bone Gatherers: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women. Boston: Beacon, 2007. Denzinger, Henricus, Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash, eds. Enchiridion Symbolorum: Definitionum et Declarationum De Rebus Fidei et Morum, 43rd edn. Freiburg: Herder, 2010. Derrida, Jacques. Aporias. Translated by D. Dutoit. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993. Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Edited by John Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1965. Diem, Hermann. Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft, 3 vols. Munich: Kaiser, 1951–63. Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius). The Complete Works. Edited by Paul Rorem. Translated by Colm Luibheid. New York: Paulist, 1987.

Select Bibliography

Dixon, Thomas. Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. New York: Harper, 1936. Dodd, C. H. The Authority of the Bible, rev. edn. London: William Collins, 1960. Dodd, C. H. History and the Gospel. London: Nisbet, 1938. Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York: Modern Library, 1949. Drees, Willem B. Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1990. Dueholm, Benjamin. Sacred Signposts: Words, Water, and Other Acts of Resistance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Duffin, Jacalyn. Medical Miracles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Dulles, Avery. Models of Revelation, rev. edn. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Dunn, James D. G. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville: Westminster, 1985. Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. New York: Macmillan, 1915. Earman, John. Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ebeling, Gerhard. Luther: An Introduction to His Thought. Translated by R. Wilson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970. Ebeling, Gerhard. The Study of Theology. Translated by Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Ebeling, Gerhard. The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians. Translated by David Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Ebeling, Gerhard. Word and Faith. Translated by James W. Leitch. London: SCM, 1963. Eckhart, Meister. Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense. Edited and translated by Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn. New York: Paulist, 1981. Ecklund, Elaine Howard. Science v. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Gregory Boyd. The Jesus Legend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Edgar, William. A Supreme Love: The Music of Jazz and the Hope of the Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022. Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of President Edwards, 10 vols. Edited by Edward Williams and Edward Parsons, 1817. Reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, 1968. Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown, 1954. Elert, Werner. The Christian Faith: An Outline of Lutheran Dogmatics. Translated by Martin Bertram and Walter Bouman. Columbus: Lutheran Theological Seminary, 1974. Elert, Werner. Der christliche Glaube, 6th edn. Berlin: Furche, 1955. Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Willard Trask. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1957.

677

678

Select Bibliography

Empie, Paul C., T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, eds. Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974. Empie, Paul C., T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess. Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VI. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980. Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Eusebius of Caesarea. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2007. Evangelical Lutheran Worship. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Evans, C. Stephen, ed. Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Fackenheim, Emil. The Jewish Return into History: Reflections in the Age of Auschwitz and a New Jerusalem. New York: Schocken Books, 1978. Fahlbusch, Erwin, Jan Milič Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer, eds. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 5 vols. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998–2008. Farley, Edward. “The Place of Theology in the Study of Religion.” Religious Studies and Theology 5 (September 1985): 9–29. Farley, Edward. Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983. Farmer, W. R. The Synoptic Problem. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Feingold, Lawrence. Faith Comes from What Is Heard: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2016. Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. Translated by George Eliot. New York: Harper & Row, 1957. Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Fiery Brook: Selected Writings of Ludwig Feuerbach. Translated by Z. Hanfi. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972. Fichte, Johann G. Introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre and Other Writings. Edited and translated by Daniel Breazeale. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology. New York: Continuum, 1994. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation. New York: Continuum, 2000. Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler. Foundational Theology: Jesus and the Church. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler., and John P. Galvin, eds. Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, 2nd edn. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Fisher, H. A. L. A History of Europe, 3 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1935–6. Fisher, Neal F. Introduction to Christian Faith: A Deeper Way of Seeing. Cork: Bookbaby, 2018.

Select Bibliography

Flew, Antony, and Gary R. Habermas. “Exclusive Interview with Antony Flew.” Philosophia Christi 6, 2 (Winter 2004): 197–212. Flew, Antony, and Roy Abraham Varghese. There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne, 2007. Ford, David F. Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Ford, David F., Ben Quash, and Janet Martin Soskice, eds. Fields of Faith: Theology and Religious Studies for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Forde, Gerhard O. On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Forell, George. The Protestant Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962. Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Frei, Hans. Types of Christian Theology. Edited by George Hunsinger and William C. Placher. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Freud, Sigmund. Collected Papers, 5 vols. Edited by James Strachey. Translated by Joan Riviere and James Strachey. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion. Translated by W. D. Robson-Scott and revised by James Strachey. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1964. Freud, Sigmund. Moses and Monotheism. Translated by Katherine Jones. New York: Vintage, 1967. Fries, Heinrich. Fundamental Theology. Translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Fromont, Cécile. The Art of Conversion: Christian Visual Culture in the Kingdom of Kongo. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014. Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981. Fulkerson, Geoffrey H., and Joel Thomas Chopp, eds. Science and the Doctrine of Creation: The Approaches of Ten Modern Theologians. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2021. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. “The Future of the European Humanities.” In Hans-Georg Gadamer on Education, Poetry, and History: Applied Hermeneutics. Edited by Dieter Misgeld and Graeme Nicholson, 193–208. Translated by Lawrence Schmidt and Monica Reuss. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method, 2nd edn. Translated by J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Gardiner, John Eliot. Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven. New York: Vintage, 2013. Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015. Geck, Martin. Johann Sebastian Bach: Life and Work. Translated by John Hargraves. New York: Harcourt, 2000.

679

680

Select Bibliography

Geertz, Clifford. “Religion as a Cultural System.” In Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach, 4th edn. Edited by William A. Lessa and Evon Z. Vogt, 78–89. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Gerhard, John. On the Nature of God and On the Most Holy Mystery of the Trinity Theology, vol. 2 (Exegesis) of Theological Commonplaces. Edited by Benjamin T. Mayes. Translated by Richard J. Dinda. St. Louis: Concordia, 2007. Gerhard, John. On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, vol. 1 of Theological Commonplaces. Translated by Richard Dinda. St. Louis: Concordia, 2006. Gerrish, B. A. Christian Faith: Dogmatics in Outline. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2015. Gerrish, B. A. Grace and Reason: A Study in Luther’s Theology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Gerrish, B. A. The Old Protestantism and the New. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982. Gerrish, B. A. A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Beginnings of Modern Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. Gerrish, B. A. Saving and Secular Faith: An Invitation to Systematic Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Gilkey, Langdon. Creationism on Trial. San Francisco: Harper, 1985. Gilkey, Langdon. Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books, 1965. Gilkey, Langdon. Message and Existence. New York: Seabury, 1981. Gilkey, Langdon. Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God-Language. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969. Gilkey, Langdon. Religion and the Scientific Future. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1970. Gingerich, Owen. God’s Universe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Glacken, Clarence. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Glazier, Stephen D., ed. Anthropology of Religion. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1997. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Faust I and II. In Goethe: The Collected Works, vol. 2. Edited and translated by Stuart Atkins. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. González-Andrieu, Cecilia. Bridge to Wonder: Art as a Gospel of Beauty. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012. Goodwin, Richard Vance. Seeing Is Believing: The Revelation of God through Film. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022. Goppelt, Leonhard. Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols. Edited by Jürgen Roloff. Translated by John Alsup. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–2. Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine, 1999. Gray, Asa. Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinis. New York: D. Appleton, 1876. Greenwood, Kyle R. Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Gregory of Palamas. The Triads. Edited by John Meyendorff. Translated by Nicolas Gendle. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1983.

Select Bibliography

Grenz, Stanley J. Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993. Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Grenz, Stanley J., and Roger E. Olson. Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996. Greyson, Bruce. After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond. New York: St. Martin’s, 2021. Gross, Neil, and Solon Simmons. “The Religiosity of American College and University Professors.” Sociology of Religion (May 2009): 101–29. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation. London: SCM, 1973. Hagenbach, Karl R. Encyclopedia and Methodology of the Theological Sciences. Translated by Charles Porterfield Krauth. Philadelphia: Garner, 1885. Hahn, Ferdinand. Historical Investigation and New Testament Faith. Edited by Edgar Krentz. Translated by Robert Maddox. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Hahn, Ferdinand. The Titles of Jesus in Christology. Translated by Harold Knight and George Ogg. Cleveland: World, 1969. Hall, Douglas John. Thinking the Faith: Christian Theology in a North American Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Hard, Robin, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology. London: Routledge, 2004. Harnack, Adolf von. History of Dogma, 7 vols. Translated by Neil Buchanan. New York: Dover, 1961. Harnack, Adolf von. What Is Christianity? Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders. New York: Harper & Row, 1957. Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004. Harrison, Peter. The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. Hart, David Bentley. The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Hart, David Bentley. The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hartshorne, Charles. Anselm’s Discovery. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing, 1965. Hartshorne, Charles. Man’s Vision of God. New York: Harper & Row, 1941. Hartshorne, Charles., and William L. Reese, eds. Philosophers Speak of God. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Harvey, Van A. The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Belief. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1996. Hastings, Adrian, ed. The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hauerwas, Stanley. Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985. Haught, John F. Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2010.

681

682

Select Bibliography

Haught, John F. The New Cosmic Story: Inside Our Awakening Universe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Haught, John F. Science and Faith: A New Introduction. New York: Paulist, 2012. Havel, Vaclav. Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Hvizdala. Translated by Paul Wilson. New York: Random House, 1990. Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. New York: Random House, 2010. Heaney, Seamus. “Seven Wonders.” Interview by Maggie Fergusson. Intelligent Life Magazine (January/February 2013): 24. Hefner, Philip. Faith and the Vitalities of History. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Hefner, Philip. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000. Hegel, Georg F. Enzylopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften. Published as System der Philosophie, 4th edn. In Sämtliche Werke, vols 8–10. Edited by H. Glockner. Stuttgart: F. Frommann, 1964–5. Hegel, Georg F. Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind. Translated by Arnold V. Miller. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Hegel, Georg F. Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 3 vols. Edited by Peter C. Hodgson. Translated by R. F. Brown and others. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984–5. Hegel, Georg F. The Logic of Hegel, 2nd edn. Translated by William Wallace. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Hegel, Georg F. The Philosophy of Nature. Translated by Arnold V. Miller. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: HarperCollins, 1962. Heimbucher, Martin, and Rudolf Weth, eds. Die Barmer Theologische Erklärung: Einführung und Dokumentation, 7th edn. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2009. Helmer, Christine. Theology and the End of Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2014. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Hengel, Martin. “ ‘Salvation History’: The Truth of Scripture and Modern Theology.” In Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom. Edited by David F. Ford and Graham Stanton, 229–44. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Hengel, Martin. The Son of God. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics. Revised and edited by Ernst Bizer. Translated by G. T. Thomson. New York: Harper & Row, 1950. Lord Herbert of Cherbury. De Veritate, 3rd edn. Translated by Meyrick H. Carré . Bristol: J. W. Arrowsmith, 1937. Herder, Johann. Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend. In Sämmtliche Werke, 33 vols in 25. Edited by Bernhard Suphan. Berlin: Weidmann, 1877–1913.

Select Bibliography

Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen, and Eduard Lohse. Faith. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981. Herzfeld, Noreen L. In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Hick, John. Arguments for the Existence of God. New York: Seabury, 1971. Hick, John, ed. Classical and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964. Hickey, Des, and Gus Smith. Miracle. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978. Highton, Mike. A Theology of Higher Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hildegard of Bingen. The Ways of the Lord. Edited by Emilie Griffin. Translated by Columba Hart and Jane Bishop. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005. Hillerbrand, Hans, ed. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007. Hitchens, Peter. The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Hoefer, Herbert. Churchless Christianity, 2nd edn. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2001. Hofmann, Johannes von. Der Schriftbeweis, 2 vols, 2nd edn. Nördlingen: C. H. Beck, 1857–60. Hofmann, Johannes von. Enzyklopädie der Theologie, nach Vorlesungen und Manuscripten. Edited by H. J. Bestmann. Nördlingen: C. H. Beck, 1879. Hofmann, Johannes von. Weissagung und Erfüllung im Alten und im Neuen Testamente, 2 vols. Nördlingen: C. H. Beck, 1841–4. Holman, Susan R. Beholden: Religion, Global Health, and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Holman, Susan R. God Knows There’s a Need: Christian Responses to Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Holmes, Michael W., ed. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers, 3rd edn. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Holtz, Barry W., ed. Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts. New York: Summit Books, 1984. The Holy Bible. New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by Permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The Holy Bible. The Revised Standard Version. 2nd edn. Copyright © 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. Hopewell, James F. Congregation: Stories and Structures. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

683

684

Select Bibliography

Horton, Robin. Patterns of Thought in Africa and the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Houston, Joseph Houston. Reported Miracles: A Critique of Hume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Howard, Thomas Albert, ed. Imago Dei: Human Dignity in Ecumenical Perspective. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2013. Howard, Thomas Albert, ed. Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Howard, Thomas Albert, ed. Religion and the Rise of Historicism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hughes, Richard T. How Christian Faith Can Sustain the Life of the Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Hughes, Richard T., and William B. Adrian, eds. Models for Christian Higher Education. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Hulme, William E. Dialogue in Despair: Pastoral Commentary on the Book of Job. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Hume, David. Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Edited and with an introduction by Kemp Smith. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977. Hume, David. Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, 3rd edn. Edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975. Hume, David. Writings on Religion. Edited by Antony Flew. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1992. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Husserl, Edmund. Ideas. Translated by Boyce Gibson. New York: Macmillan Company, 1931. Hütter Reinhard. “Creatio Ex Nihilo: Promise of the Gift: Re-membering the Christian Doctrine of Creation in Troubled Times.” In Some Christian and Jewish Perspectives on the Creation. Edited by Robert A. Brungs, 1–12. St. Louis: ITEST Faith/Science Press, 1991. Huxley, Thomas Henry. Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992. Irvin, Dale T. Christian Histories, Christian Traditioning: Rendering Accounts. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998. Jackelèn, Antje. Time and Eternity: The Concept of Time in Church, Science, and Theology. Philadelphia: Templeton, 2010. Jacobsen, Douglas, and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, eds. The American University in a Postsecular Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Jacobsen, Douglas, and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen. “Can Christianity Save the Humanities?” The Cresset (Michaelmas 2017): 11–20. Jacobsen, Douglas, and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen. No Longer Invisible: Religion in University Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Jacobsen, Douglas, and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen. Scholarship and Christian Faith: Enlarging the Conversation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Select Bibliography

Jaeger, Lydia. “Against Physicalism-Plus-God: How Creation Accounts for Divine Action in Nature’s World.” Faith and Philosophy 29, 3 (2012): 295–312. James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982. James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Jaspers, Karl. Philosophy, 3 vols. Translated by E. B. Ashton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969–71. Jeanrond, Werner. Text and Interpretation as Categories of Theological Thinking. New York: Crossroad, 1991. Jeanrond, Werner. Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance. London: SCM, 1994. Jefferson, Thomas. Writings. Edited by Merrill D. Peterson. New York: Library of America, 1984. Jeffrey, David Lyle. In the Beauty of Holiness: Art and the Bible in Western Culture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Jenson, Robert. America’s Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Jenson, Robert. Systematic Theology, 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997–9. Jeremias, Joachim. Jesus and the Message of the New Testament. Edited by K. C. Hanson. Translated by Norman Perrin. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Joest, Wilfried. Fundamentaltheologie: Theologische Grundlagen- und Methodenprobleme, 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981. John of the Cross. The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross. Translated by Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez. Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979. John of the Cross. The Dark Night of the Soul. Translated by David Lewis. London: Thomas Baker, 1908. John Paul II (Pope). John Paul II on Science and Religion: Reflections on the New View from Rome. Edited by Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J. Vatican: Vatican Observatory, 1990. John the Scot. Periphyseon: On the Division of Nature. Translated by Myra L. Uhlfelder. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Johnson, David. Hume, Holism, and Miracles. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2000. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: HarperOne, 1997. Johnson, Philip. Darwin on Trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991. Johnson, Todd M., and Gina A. Zurlo, eds. The World Christian Database. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2019.

685

686

Select Bibliography

Johnson, Todd M., and Gina A. Zurlo, eds. World Christian Encyclopedia, 3rd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020. Johnston, Mark. Saving God: Religion after Idolatry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Jones, Andrew Willard, and Louis St. Hilaire. Evidence of Things Unseen: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology. Gastonia, NC: TAN Books, 2021. Jones, Ernest. The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, 3 vols. New York: Basic Books, 1957. Jones, Lindsay, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edn, 15 vols. New York: Thomson Gale, 2004. Jones, Serene. Feminist Theory and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Jorgenson, Kiara A., and Alan G. Padgett, eds. Ecotheology: A Christian Conversation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Josephus, Flavius. The Complete Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981. Josephus, Flavius. Josephus: The Essential Works. Edited and translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994. Julian of Norwich. Showings. Translated by Edmund Colledge. New York: Paulist, 1978. Jüngel, Eberhard. God as the Mystery of the World. Translated by Darrell L. Guder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Kähler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. Translated by Carl Braaten. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Lewis White Beck. New York: Macmillan, 1956. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s, 1965. Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. Translated by Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Kantor, Jean-Michel, and Loren Graham. Naming Infinity: A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical Creativity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Käsemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. Translated by W. J. Montague. London: SCM, 1964. Katz, Stephen. Mysticism and Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Kaufman, Gordon. God-Mystery-Diversity: Christian Theology in a Pluralistic World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Kaufman, Gordon. Theology for a Nuclear Age. Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox, 1985. Kelsey, David H. Between Athens and Jerusalem: The Theological Education Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Kelsey, David H. To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological about a Theological School. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Kepnes, Steven, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Select Bibliography

Kierkegaard, Søren. Attack upon “Christendom.” Translated by Walter Lowrie Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Kilner, John F., ed. Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017. King, Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? London: Belknap, 2005. Kinnamon, Michael. The Witness of Religion in an Age of Fear. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 2017. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Kittelson, James M., and Hans H. Wiersma. Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career, 2nd edn. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Klotz, John W. Genes, Genesis, and Evolution. St. Louis: Concordia, 1955. Knowles, David. The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 2nd edn. Edited by D. E. Luscombe and C. N. L. Brooke. London: Longman, 1988. Kobes Du Mez, Kristin. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. New York: Liveright, 2021. Kolakowski, Leszek. My Correct Views on Everything. Edited by Zbigniew Janowski. South Bend: St. Augustine’s, 2005. Kolb, Robert, and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated by Charles Arand, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, William Russell, James Schaaf, Jane Strohl, and Timothy J. Wengert. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970. Küng, Hans. Does God Exist? An Answer for Today. Translated by Edward Quinn. New York: Crossroad, 1991. Küng, Hans. Eternal Life: Life after Death as a Medical, Philosophical, and Theological Problem. Translated by Edward Quinn. New York: Doubleday, 1984. LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. God for Us: The Trinity & Christian Life. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. Langan, John P., ed. Catholic Universities in Church and Society: A Dialogue on Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1993. Lathrop, Gordon W. Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. Leeuw, Gerardus van der. Religion in Essence and Manifestation, 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Leeuw, Gerardus van der. Sacred and Profane Beauty: The Holy in Art. Translated by David A. Green. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil. Edited by Austin Farrer. Translated by E. M. Huggard. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. Leith, John H., ed. Creeds of the Churches, 3rd edn. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

687

688

Select Bibliography

Leplin, Jarrett, ed. Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: Macmillan, 1947. Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity, rev. edn. New York: Macmillan, 1952. Lewis, C. S. Miracles. New York: Macmillan, 1947. Lewis, Hywell David. Our Experience of God. New York, Macmillan 1959. Lincoln, Bruce. Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Lindbeck, George. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. The Beginnings of Western Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Lindenfeld, David. World Christianity and Indigenous Experience: A Global History, 1500–2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Livingston, James C. Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009. Livingston, James C. Modern Christian Thought, 2 vols, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pentice Hall, 1997–2000. Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Lombard, Jay. The Mind of God: Neuroscience, Faith, and a Search for the Soul. New York: Harmony, 2017. Lonergan, Bernard. Method in Theology. New York: Seabury, 1972. Lonergan, Bernard. Philosophy of God and Theology. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973. Louth, Andrew, Frank L. Cross, and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 4th edn, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Löwith, Karl. From Hegel to Nietzsche: The Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Thought. Translated by David E. Green. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1964. Luce, J. V. An Introduction to Greek Philosophy. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1992. Lüdemann, Gerd. Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996. Ludwig, Theodore M. The Sacred Paths: Understanding the Religions of the World. 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. Luther, Martin. D. Luther’s Works (American Edition, original series), 55 vols. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia and Fortress, 1955–86.

Select Bibliography

Luther, Martin. D. Luther’s Works (American Edition, new series), 28 vols. Edited by Christopher Boyd Brown. St. Louis: Concordia, 2009–. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe [Weimar Ausgabe], 65 vols in 127. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–1993. Lyotard, Jean François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by Geoff Benington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. New York: Penguin, 2011. MacHaffie, Barbara J. Her Story: Women in Christian Tradition, 2nd edn. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2006. MacIntyre, Alasdair, and Paul Ricoeur. The Religious Significance of Atheism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. MacIntyre, Alasdair. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Mack, Burton. Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. Mackie, J. L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind 64 (1955): 200–12. Madueme, Hans, and Michael Reeves, eds. Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin: Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Malcolm, Norman. “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments.” Philosophical Review 69 (1960): 41–62. Mancini, Guy. Fundamental Theology. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018. Marsden, George. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Marsden, George. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Marshall, Bruce. Trinity and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Martin, Dale. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. Marty, Martin E. The Christian World: A Global History. New York: Modern Library, 2007. Marty, Peter W. “Companion in Our Pain.” Christian Century (January 31, 2018): 3. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels on Religion. New York: Schocken, 1964. Mason, Richard. The God of Spinoza: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Mattes, Mark. Martin Luther’s Theology of Beauty: A Reappraisal. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017. Mattes, Mark. The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology. Lutheran Quarterly Books. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Matthes, Melissa M. When Sorrow Comes: The Power of Sermons from Pearl Harbor to Black Lives Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021.

689

690

Select Bibliography

McCrea, William H. “Relativity Theory and the Creation of Matter.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (1951), A 206: 562–75. McFague, Sallie. Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. McFague, Sallie. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. McGinn, Bernard. The Doctors of the Church: Thirty-Three Men and Women Who Shaped Christianity, rev. edn. New York: Crossroad, 2010. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th edn. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2016. McGrath, Alister E. Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. McGrath, Alister E. Dawkins’ God: From The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015. McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2009. McGrath, Alister E. The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. McGrath, Alister E. “The Owl of Minerva: Reflections on the Theological Significance of Mary Midgley.” Heythrop Journal 61 (2020): 852–64. McGrath, Alister E. Science and Religion: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. McGrath, Alister E. Scientific Theology, 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001–3. McNeill, John T. The Celtic Churches: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1991–2009. Meilaender, Gilbert. Neither Beast nor God: The Dignity of the Human Person. New York: Encounter Books, 2009. Melanchthon, Philip. Loci Communes (1521). Edited and translated by Charles Leander Hill. Boston: Meador, 1944. Melanchthon, Philip. Loci Communes (1555). Edited and translated by Clyde Manschreck. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Melanchthon, Philip. “On the Distinction between the Gospel and Philosophy.” In Philip Melanchthon: Orations on Philosophy and Education. Edited by Sachiko Kusukawa, 23–5. Translated by Christine F. Salazar. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980. Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Reprint, 1997. Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2013. Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009. Midgley, Mary. Evolution as a Religion. London: Routledge, 2002.

Select Bibliography

Midgley, Mary. Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning. London: Routledge, 1992. Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd edn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Miller, Eddie LeRoy. God and Reason: An Invitation to Philosophical Theology, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995. Miller, Kenneth. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Miller, Malcolm. Chartres Cathedral, 2nd edn. New York: Riverside, 2004. Miller, Paul D. The Religion of American Greatness: What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism. Westmont, IL: InterVarsity, 2022. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Translated by R. A. Wilson and John Bowden. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope. Translated by James W. Leitch. London: SCM, 1967. Moltmann, Jürgen. “What Is a Theologian?” Irish Theological Quarterly 64 (1999): 189–98. Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd edn. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2017. Morris, Brian. Anthropological Studies of Religion. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Mosshammer, A. A. The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Mossner, E. C. The Life of David Hume. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1954. Moule, C. F. D. The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd edn. New York: Harper & Row, 1982. Mueller, David L. An Introduction to the Theology of Albrecht Ritschl. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Mueller, Steven P., ed. Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess: An Introduction to Doctrinal Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Mühling, Markus. Resonances: Neurobiology, Evolution and Theology: Evolutionary Niche Construction, the Ecological Brain and Relational-Narrative Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Murphy, George L. Letter to the Editor. The Christian Century (November 16, 2010): 6. Murphy, Nancey, and William Stoeger, eds. Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Murphy, Nancey, and William Stoeger. Reconciling Science and Religion: A Radical Reformation Perspective. Oakland, CA: Pandora, 1997. Murphy, Nancey, and William Stoeger. Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.

691

692

Select Bibliography

Murphy, Nancey, William Stoeger, and Christopher C. Knight, eds. Human Identity at the Intersection of Science, Technology and Religion. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010. Murphy, Nancey, William Stoeger, and George F. R. Ellis. On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Musser, Donald W., and Joseph L. Price, eds. A New Handbook of Christian Theology. Nashville: Abingdon, 1992. Nagel, Thomas. The Last Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Nahm, Milton C., ed. Selections from Greek Philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. Neusch, Marcel. The Sources of Modern Atheism. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. New York: Paulist, 1982. Newberg, Andrew B. Neurotheology: How Science Can Enlighten Us about Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2021. Newberg, Andrew B. Principles of Neurotheology. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2010. Newberg, Andrew B., Eugene G. D’Aquili, and Vince Rause. Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine, 2001. Newman, John Henry. The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated. Edited by I. T. Kerr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row, 1951. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Portable Nietzsche. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Viking, 1954. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power. Edited by Walter Kaufmann. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage, 1967. Noll, Mark. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Nord, Warren A. “Taking Religion Seriously in Public Universities.” In The American University in a Postsecular Age. Edited by Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, 167–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Ocáriz, Fernando, and Arturo Blanco. Fundamental Theology. Woodridge, IL: Midwest Theological Forum, 2009. O’Collins, Gerald. Rethinking Fundamental Theology: Toward a New Fundamental Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ogden, Schubert M. The Reality of God and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Oliver, Dianne L. “Religion as ‘Truth-Claims.’ ” In Introduction to Religious Studies. Edited by Paul O. Myhre, 41–52. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2009. Omerod, Neil, and Christiaan Jacobs-Vandegeer. Foundational Theology: A New Approach to Catholic Fundamental Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Select Bibliography

Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. Translated by John W. Harvey. London: Oxford University Press, 1923. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage, 1989. Paley, William. Evidences of Christianity. New York: Carter, 1859. Paley, William. Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, 6th edn. London: Wilks and Taylor, 1803. Pals, Daniel L. Ten Theories of Religion, 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Anthropology in Theological Perspective. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 1. Translated by George H. Kehm. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 2. Translated by George H. Kehm. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Christianity in a Secularized World. Translated by John Bowden. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Translated by Philip Clayton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ed. Revelation as History. Translated by David Granskou London: Macmillan Company, 1968. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology, 3 vols. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991–8. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Theology and the Philosophy of Science. Translated by Francis McDonagh. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith. Edited by Ted Peters. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Parks, Sharon Daloz. Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in Their Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000. Parsons, Susan Frank, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Translated by A. J. Krailsheimer. New York: Penguin, 1966. Paulson, Steven D. Luther’s Outlaw God, 3 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018–21. Paulson, Steven D. Lutheran Theology. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Peacocke, Arthur. All That Is. Edited by Philip Clayton. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Peacocke, Arthur. Creation and the World of Science. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Peacocke, Arthur. Theology for a Scientific Age, 2nd edn. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. Peck, M. Scott. People of the Lie, 2nd edn. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Bach among the Theologians. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971–89. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Christianity and Classical Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

693

694

Select Bibliography

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Fools for Christ: Essays on the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Idea of the University: A Reexamination. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Peter Abelard. Yes and No: Peter Abelard’s Sic et Non, 3rd edn. Translated by Priscilla Throop. Charlotte, VT: MedievalMS, 2008. Peter Lombard. The Sentences, 4 vols. Translated by Giulio Silano. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–10. Peters, Ted. God–The World’s Future: Systematic Theology for a Postmodern Era. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Peters, Ted. Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1997. Peters, Ted, ed. Science and Theology: The New Consonance, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge, 2019. Peterson, Gregory R. Minding God: Theology and the Cognitive Sciences. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Peterson, James C. Changing Human Nature: Ecology, Ethics, Genes, and God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo, new edn. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Foreword by David M. Scholer. Nashville: Hendrickson, 1993. Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols and index. Translated by Theodore Engelder, Walter W. F. Albrecht, and J. T. Mueller. St. Louis: Concordia, 1950–7. Pieper, Josef. Tradition: Concept and Claim. Translated by E. Christian Kopff. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2008. Piepkorn, Arthur Carl. Profiles in Belief, 3 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1977–9. Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Plato. “Euthyphro.” In Plato: The Collected Dialogues. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, 169–85. Translated by Lane Cooper. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. Plato. The Republic. Translated by Tom Griffith. In Plato: The Republic. Edited by G. R. F. Ferrari. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Polkinghorne, John. Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Polkinghorne, John. Faith of a Physicist. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996.

Select Bibliography

Polkinghorne, John. “God’s Action in the World.” Cross Currents 41 (Fall 1991): 293–307. Polkinghorne, John. Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding. London: SPCK, 1988. Polkinghorne, John. Science & Theology: An Introduction. London: SPCK, 1998. Preus, J. Samuel. Explaining Religion: Criticism and Theory from Bodin to Freud. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Proclus. Elements of Theology, 2nd edn. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Wiltshire, England: Prometheus Trust, 2019. Proudfoot, Wayne. Religious Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Provine, William. “Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics.” MBL Science 3 (1988): 25–9. Purvis, Zachary. Theology and the University in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Putnam, Robert D., and David E. Campbell. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Rad, Gerhard von. Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962–5. Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. Translated by William V. Dych. New York: Crossroad, 1978. Rahner, Karl. Hearer of the Word. Translated by Joseph Donceel. New York: Continuum, 1994. Rahner, Karl., and J. B. Metz. Spirit in the World. New York: Continuum, 1994. Ratke, David C., ed. The New Perspective on Paul. Minneapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2012. Ratschow, Carl Heinz. “Friedrich Nietzsche.” In Nineteenth-Century Religious Thought in the West, 3 vols. Edited by Ninian Smart, John Clayton, Patrick Sherry, and Steven T. Katz, 3.37–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Rees, Martin. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Renfrew, Colin, and Iain Morley, eds. Becoming Human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Richardson, Cyril, ed. Early Christian Fathers. New York: Macmillan, 1970. Richardson, W. Mark, and Wesley J. Wildman, eds. Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue. New York: Routledge, 1996. Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. Edited by Don Ihde. Translated by Kathleen McLaughlin, Robert Sweeney, Willis Domingo, Peter McCormick, Denis Savage, and Charles Freilich. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974. Ricoeur, Paul. Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination. Edited by Mark I. Wallace. Translated by David Pellauer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Ricoeur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976.

695

696

Select Bibliography

Ricoeur, Paul. Oneself as Another. Translated by Kathleen Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Ricoeur, Paul. The Symbolism of Evil. Translated by Emerson Buchanan. Boston: Beacon, 1969. Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative, 3 vols. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984–8. Ricoeur, Paul, and André LaCocque. Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies. Translated by David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers, rev. edn, 10 vols. Edited by A. Cleveland Coxe. 1885. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950–7. Robinson, James M., ed. The Beginnings of Dialectical Theology. Translated by Keith Crim. Richmond: John Knox, 1968. Rodrίguez, Rubén Rosario. Dogmatics after Babel: Beyond the Theologies of Word and Culture. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2018. Rosenberg, Stanley P., ed. Finding Ourselves after Darwin: Conversations on the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Rubenstein Jr., Richard L. After Auschwitz. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. Rüegg, Walter, ed. A History of the University in Europe, 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992–2011. Ruether, Rosemary R. Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. San Francisco: HarperOne, 1994. Ruether, Rosemary R. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Boston: Beacon, 1984. Russell, Robert John. Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Russell, Robert John. Time in Eternity: Pannenberg, Physics, and Eschatology in Creative Mutual Interaction. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012. Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 1980. Saler, Benson. Conceptualizing Religion. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin, 1993. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM, 1993. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Santmire, H. Paul. Brother Earth: Nature, God, and Ecology. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1970. Santmire, H. Paul. The Travail of Nature. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Sasse, Hermann. Sacra scriptura: Studien zur Lehre von der Heiligen Schrift. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Hopf. Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.-Luth. Mission, 1981. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, 14 vols. Edited by Philip Schaff, 1886–9. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, 14 vols., 1890. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. Theological Propaedeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1893.

Select Bibliography

Schjeldahl, Peter. “77 Sunset Me.” The New Yorker (December 23, 2019): 34–45. Schlatter, Adolf. Schlatters Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament, 10 vols. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Berlin, 1961–4. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Brief Outline on the Study of Theology. Translated by Terrence N. Tice. Atlanta: John Knox, 1966. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Christian Faith, 2 vols. Edited by Catherine L. Kelsey and Terrence N. Tice. Translated by Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2016. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers [1799]. Translated by Richard Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Theologische Enzyklopaedie (1831–1832): Nachschrift David Friedrich Strauss. Edited by Walter Sachs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987. Schlink, Edmund. Edmund Schlink Works, 5 vols. Edited by Matthew L. Becker. Translated by Matthew L. Becker, Robin Lutjohann, Hans G. Spalteholz, Mark A. Seifrid, Eleanor Wegener, and Ken Jones. Göttingen: Brill/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017–. Schlink, Edmund. The Theology of the Lutheran Confessions. Translated by Paul F. Koehneke and Herbert J. A. Bouman. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961. Schlink, Edmund. “Zum theologischen Problem der Musik.” In Schriften zu Ökumene und Bekenntnis, vol. 5. Edited by Ursula Schnell, 147–69. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Schmid, Heinrich. Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3rd edn. Translated by Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1889. Schwarz, Hans. The Human Being: A Theological Anthropology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Schwarz, Hans. Vying for Truth – Theology and the Natural Sciences from the 17th Century to the Present. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Schwehn, Mark. “Lutheranism and the Future of the University.” The Cresset 73 (December 2009): 6–14. Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Edited by John Bowden. Translated by William Montgomery and others. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. Schwöbel, Christoph. God: Action and Revelation. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992. Segal, Robert A., and Nickolas P. Roubekas, eds. The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2021. Silverman, Allan Jay. The Dialectics of Essence: A Study of Plato’s Metaphysics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Simon, Arthur. The Rising of Bread for the World: An Outcry of Citizens against Hunger. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2009. Simpson, George Gaylord. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949. Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner, eds. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Sittler, Joseph. Care of the Earth and Other University Sermons. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964.

697

698

Select Bibliography

Sittler, Joseph. The Ecology of Faith. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961. Sittler, Joseph. Evocations of Grace: The Writings of Joseph Sittler on Ecology, Theology, and Ethics. Edited by Steve Bouma-Prediger and Peter Bakken. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Small, Hele. The Value of the Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Smith, Christian. Religion: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It Matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. Smith, Jonathan Z. Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Sobel, Jordan Howard. Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Sobrino, Jon. Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach. Translated by John Drury. Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1978. Spencer, Nick. The Evolution of the West: How Christianity Has Shaped Our Values. London: SPCK, 2016. Spener, Philipp Jakob. Pia Desideria, or Heartfelt Desire for a God-Pleasing Reform of the True Evangelical Church. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. Spinoza, Benedict. “The Theological-Political Tractate.” In Spinoza: Complete Works, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 383–583. Translated by Samuel Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002. Steiner, George. Errata: An Examined Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Stendahl, Krister. The Bible and the Role of Women: A Case Study in Hermeneutics. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Stenger, Victor. The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? Amherst: Prometheus, 2006. Stewart, David. Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992. Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 4th edn, 3 vols. Translated by George Eliot. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels. London: Macmillan, 1924. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Stump, J. B. Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2017. Stump, J. B., and Alan G. Padgett, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Edited by Michael Grant. Translated by Robert Graves. London: Penguin, 1989. Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of God, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Select Bibliography

Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God? 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Swing, Albert Temple. The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl. New York: Longmans, Green, 1901. Symynkywicz, Jeffrey. The Gospel according to Bruce Springsteen. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2008. Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Translated by Michael Grant. London: Penguin, 1989. The Talmud: A Selection. Edited and translated by Norman Solomon. New York: Penguin, 2009. Tanner, Kathryn. Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997. Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1990. Tattersall, Ian. Understanding Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Taylor, Vincent. The Life and Ministry of Jesus. Nashville: Abingdon, 1955. Teilhard, Pierre de Chardin. The Divine Milieu. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Teilhard, Pierre de Chardin. The Phenomenon of Man. Translated by Bernard Wall. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Tennant, Frederick R. Philosophical Theology, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928–30. Teresa of Ávila. The Book of Her Life. In vol. 1 of The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, 2nd edn. Edited and translated by Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez. Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1987–2002. Teresa of Ávila. The Interior Castle. Translated by Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez. New York: Paulist, 1979. Teresa of Ávila. The Way of Perfection. Edited and translated by E. Allison Peers. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) and Brian Kolodiejchuk. Come Be My Light: The Private Reflections of the Saint of Calcutta. New York: Doubleday, 2007. Thaxton, Charles, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. New York: Philosophical Library, 1984. Thielicke, Helmut. The Evangelical Faith, 3 vols. Edited and translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–81. Thielicke, Helmut. Modern Faith and Thought. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Thiemann, Ronald. Revelation and Theology: The Gospel as Narrated Promise. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985. Thiessen, Joel, and Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme. None of the Above: Nonreligious Identity in the US and Canada. New York: New York University Press, 2020.

699

700

Select Bibliography

Thiessen, Matthew. Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2020. Thistlethwaite, Susan Brooks, ed. Adam, Eve, and the Genome: The Human Genome Project and Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Thomas Aquinas. The Summa contra Gentiles. Translated by Anton Pegis. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1955. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947. Tillich, Paul. Christianity and the Encounter with World Religions. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Tillich, Paul. The Courage to Be. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. Tillich, Paul. On Art and Architecture. Edited by John Dillenberger. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951–63. Torjesen, Karen Jo. When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995. Torrance, Thomas F. Christian Theology and Scientific Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Torrance, Thomas F. Ground and Grammar of Theology: Consonance between Theology and Science. London: Continuum, 2005. Torrance, Thomas F. Reality and Evangelical Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. Tracy, David. The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Tracy, David. Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology. Minneapolis: Winston-Seabury, 1975. Tracy, David. Fragments: The Existential Situation of our Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020. Tracy, David. Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Treier, Daniel J., Mark Husbands, and Roger Lundin, eds. The Beauty of God: Theology and the Arts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007. Troeltsch, Ernst. Religion in History. Translated by James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense. Fortress Texts in Modern Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Tylor, E. B. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom [1871], 2 vols, 4th edn, rev. London: John Murray, 1903. Vainio, Olli-Pekka. Cosmology in Theological Perspective: Understanding Our Place in the Universe. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Veeneman, Mary M. Introducing Theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017. Volf, Miroslav. Allah: A Christian Response. New York: HarperOne, 2011. Volf, Miroslav, ed. Do We Worship the Same God: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Select Bibliography

Voltaire. Candide, Zadig, and Other Stories. Translated by Donald M. Frame. New York: Signet Classics, 2009. Voskamp, Ann. One Thousand Gifts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Ward, Keith. God and the Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Ward, Keith. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins. Oxford: Lion Books, 2008. Weber, Max. “Science as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited and translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 129–56. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Weber, Otto. Foundations of Dogmatics, 2 vols. Translated by Darrell L. Guder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–3. Webster, John, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Weil, Simone. Waiting for God. Translated by Emma Craufurd. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Weinberg, Steven. The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe. London: Trinity Press, 1977. Weintraub, David A. How Old Is the Universe? Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Welch, Claude. “Dispelling Some Myths about the Split between Theology and Science in the NineteenthCentury.” In Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue. Edited by W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman, 29–40. London: Routledge, 1996. Welker, Michael, ed. The Depth of the Human Person: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Westermeyer, Paul. Te Deum: The Church and Music. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Westhelle, Vίtor. The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. White, Andrew D. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1896. White, Lynn Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155 (March 10, 1967): 1203–7. Whitehead, Alfred North. Religion in the Making. New York: Macmillan, 1926. Wiesel, Elie. All Rivers Run to the Sea: Memoirs. New York: Schocken, 1995. Wilken, Robert. “Historical Theology.” In A New Handbook of Christian Theology. Edited by Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price. Nashville: Abingdon, 1992. Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Williams, Rowan. Dostoevsky: Language, Faith, and Fiction. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011. Wilson, A. N. “Why I Believe Again.” New Statesmen, April 2, 2009. Wilson, E. O. Consilience. New York: Knopf, 1998. Wilson, E. O. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright, 2012. Wiman, Christian. He Held Radical Light: The Art of Faith, the Faith of Art. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2018.

701

702

Select Bibliography

Wiman, Christian. My Bright Abyss: Meditations of a Modern Believer. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2013. Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Wink, Walter. Unmasking the Powers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Wolff, Christoph. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. New York: Norton, 2000. Wolpert, Lewis. Six Impossible Things before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. Wood, Allen W. “Rational Theology, Moral Faith, and Religion.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Edited by Paul Guyer, 394–416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Wright, G. Ernest. God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital. London: SCM, 1952. Wright, N. T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, 4 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992–2013. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. London: SPCK, 2013. Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Wright, N. T. Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011. Wyman Jr., Walter E. The Concept of Glaubenslehre: Ernst Troeltsch and the Theological Heritage of Schleiermacher. AAR Academy Series 44. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. Translated by J. H. Lesher. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Yang, Fenggang, Atlas of Religion in China: Social and Geographical Contexts. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018. Yinger, John Milton. Ethnicity: Source of Strength? Source of Conflict? Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.

Index of Persons

Abbott, Lyman 561 Abelard, Peter 79–80, 527 Abram/Abraham (patriarch) call of 70, 248, 257 divine promise to 144, 247, 285, 304–6, 364–71, 415, 424 Africanus, Julius 32n. Ahlstrom, Sydney E. 528n., 529n. Aland, Barbara 283n., 290n. 291n. Aland, Kurt 283n. 290n, 291n. Albert the Great 149 Alexander the Great 68, 288 Allen, Gracie 7n. Alston, William P. 288 Alter, Robert 337–8 Althaus, Paul 242n., 379n., 380, 408 Ambrose of Milan 76, 78, 641 Anselm of Canterbury 78–9, 111, 121, 164– 73, 191 Antony of Egypt 41, 272n. Aquinas, Thomas and the analogy of being 178, 546 and “Christ above culture” 527–8, 546 criticism against 89, 110, 149, 177–8, 204– 5, 422–3, 520 “five ways to God” by (arguments for God’s existence) 169, 173–8 and Gerhard 86, 109, 111 on God as “Supreme Being” 191 on grace and nature (see also “reason and revelation”) 422 on the incomprehensibility of God 74n., 142 and Luther 82, 110, 236–7 and Melanchthon 84, 478 on the natural knowledge of God 149, 174, 236–7 on the object of theology 125, 145

and Pannenberg 109, 112 and Plantinga 182 and Rahner 100, 159 on reason and revelation (see also “grace and nature”) 81, 149, 154, 270, 498 on scriptural authority and interpretation 302, 326n., 346, 350 on theology 72, 81, 468, 478, 520 use of Aristotle by 82, 177, 346, 468, 520, 538 Aristotle and Aquinas 81–2, 177, 346, 468, 520, 538 criticism of myths by 66–7, 121 and Gerhard 86–8 on God 177 and Hegel 92 and Luther 82 and Melanchthon 84–5, 478 Arius 38n., 426, 444 Arminius, Jacobus 47 Arndt, Johann 88 Athanasius 76, 272n., 293, 426 Athenagoras 326n. Augustine of Canterbury 50 Augustine of Hippo and “Christ transforming culture” 529 on creation 148, 579–80 as doctor of the church 76 and Donatism 76 on God 84, 141, 148, 157, 167–8, 192, 350, 445n., 478n. on image of God 148–9 on liberal arts 474 and Platonism 77, 148, 538 on scriptural authority and interpretation 325, 343, 346, 350, 578 on theology 67, 79, 84, 86, 121, 146, 167, 477–8, 521

704

Index of Persons on “two books” (Scripture and nature) 151, 578 Aulén, Gustav 329n. Austin, John L. 437 Averroes 82n. Avicenna 82n. Bach, Johann S. 8, 185, 222, 365n., 542, 544 Bacon, Francis 210–11 Baillie, John 144n., 158n., 265n., 276 Baker, Julien 544 Balthasar, Hans Urs von 100n., 223n., 546 Barbour, Ian 582–6, 593, 598 Barr, James 261n., 321, 409 Barrow, John D. 571n. Barry, Wendell 588n. Barth, Karl criticism of Bultmann by 98 criticism of Luther by 201–2 criticism of natural theology by 95–6, 125, 157–8 criticism of Schleiermacher by 94–6 and dialectical theology 94–5, 260–1 on dogmatics and ethics 96, 513 and Feuerbach 201–2 and images 546 influence on later theologians by 100n., 104–5, 161–2, 422n. on Mozart 542 on revelation 94–5, 134, 158–60, 260–2, 276, 484 on theology and science 121, 561, 583 on theology as a university discipline 94, 484–5, 520 Basil of Caesarea 76, 148n. Bauer, Bruno 338 Bauer, Walter 294 Bayer, Oswald on biblical interpretation 328, 343, 353, 437 on the gospel as promise 437, 454 on the incomprehensibility of God 238–9 on the object of theology 108–10, 124 Becker, Ernest 419–20 Becker, Matthew 92n., 99n., 108n., 114, 258n., 276, 185n., 310n., 409, 429n., 483n., 561n. Beecher, Henry Ward 561

Beethoven, Ludwig von 8, 544 Begbie, Jeremy 543n., 544n., 547n. Behe, Michael 574–6 Bellah, Robert 13n., 221n. Bergen, Doris 310n. Berger, Peter 201, 213, 223–30, 472n. Bertram, Robert 344n., 421–2, 581n. Biel, Gabriel 346 Bonaventure 81–2, 149 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 97n., 100, 222, 245, 345 Boniface 50 Bonnet, Charles 556–7 Bono (Paul David Hewson) 222, 272n. Borg, Marcus 378 Bornkamm, Günther 377n., 380, 410 Bouma-Prediger, Steven 587n., 588n. Bowker, John 211 Boyer, Ernest 18n. Brooks, Arthur C. 19n. Brooks, David 18n. Brown, Frank Burch 223n. Brown, Raymond 298n., 320, 413 Browning, Don 21, 119, 131, 567n. Bruce, F. F. 296n., 371n. Brueggemann, Walter 285n., 320, 370n. Brunner, Emil 158–60, 165, 429 Buckley, Michael 193n. Bultmann, Rudolf and de-mythologizing 98 on exegesis 339, 409–10 and existentialism 98, 100, 371n., 376, 380 on the historical Jesus 376–8, 380 influence on later theologians by 103, 258 on natural theology 243 on the object of theology 96–8, 110, 124–5, 134, 165 on revelation 160, 258, 260–2, 276 Burckhardt, Jacob 63 Burkett, Delbert 378n. Burns, George 7n. Burtchaell, James T. 117n. Calvin, John on the bondage of the human will 45 and “Christ transforming culture” 529–30 definition of “faith” by 437 and images 546

Index of Persons and later Protestantism 45–6, 151, 157 and the natural knowledge of God 150–1, 182, 237 and Plantinga 182 reforms by 42, 44 on scriptural authority 302, 309n. on the object of theology 84, 146, 157, 457 Cameron, Euan 508n. Caravaggio 543 Carter, Jimmy, President 16–17, 222 Chemnitz, Martin 43n. Cherubini, Luigi 544 Chesterton, G. K. 603 Childs, Brevard 69n., 320, 349n. Chopp, Rebecca 102n., 264, 416n. Chrysostom, John 76 Cicero 85, 353, 472n. Clement of Alexandria 72–4, 147, 270, 283, 474–5 Clement of Rome 284n., 289, 291, 309n., 425n. Collins, Francis 181n., 183, 189, 219, 241 Congar, Yves 76n., 461 Constantine the Great, Emperor 35–6, 507 Cooper, Terry D. 21n., 567n. Cooper-White, Pamela 15n. Copernicus, Nicolaus 56, 469, 572–3, 578, 580 Cranach, Lucas Sr. 545n., 546 Crews, Frederick C. 564n. Crossan, John Dominic 378 Cullmann, Oscar 257, 285n., 409 Cunningham, Lawrence 25 Cyprian of Carthage 75–6 Cyril of Alexandria 76 Daly, Mary 264, 417n. Dante 8, 222 D’Aquili, Eugene G. 228–9 Darwin, Charles 179, 198, 558–64, 574, 578, 593 David, King of Ancient Israel 33, 70–1, 305–6, 354, 364, 367, 396 Davies, Paul 181n., 570–1 Dawkins, Richard 178n., 202–3, 210n., 219n., 220, 563, 596 Dawn, Marva 511n. Day, Dorothy 222

Deane-Drummond, Celia 595 Dembski, William 574n. Dennett, Daniel 203n. Denzey, Nicola 506n. Derrida, Jacques 223 Descartes, René 152–3, 170–1, 193, 602 Diana, Princess of Wales 222 Diderot, Denis 475 Diem, Hermann 485n. Dillenberger, John 574 Dionysius (Pseudo-) 74n., 78, 87, 141–2 Dix, Otto 548 Dixon, Thomas 556n. Dodd, C. H. 285n., 321, 369n. 371n., 381n., 410 Dostoevsky, Fyodor 206–7, 222, 543n. Dulles, Avery 255–65, 547n. Dunn, James D. G. 404n., 420n. Duns Scotus see Scotus, Duns Dürer, Albrecht 546 Durkheim, Émile 9 Ebeling, Gerhard 97, 134, 257–60, 286n., 333n., 344n., 469n., 497n., 505–7, 513, 540n. Eck, Johann 347 Eckhart, Meister 75n. Edwards, Jonathan 89 Ehrman, Bart 294–5, 297 Einstein, Albert xiv, 211 Elert, Werner 100, 242n. criticism of Barth by 99, 159, 422n. on “fate” 239 on law and gospel 437n. on scriptural authority 328 on theology 455n., 457, 490n., 499n. Eliade, Mircea 9n., 162, 225, 227 Epaphras 59 Exiguus, Dionysius 32n. Fackenheim, Emil 17, 214 Farley, Edward 476n., 478n., 489, 537 Feuerbach, Ludwig 14, 92, 109, 158, 196–7, 201n., 202–3, 210–12 Fichte, Johann G. 469–70 Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler 103, 264, 379n., 416n.

705

706

Index of Persons Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler ix, 401n., 457 Fisher, H. A. L. 208n. Fisher, Neal 184n. Flew, Antony 180–1, 193n., 219 Ford, David 365n., 468n., 469n., 471n., 478n., 522n. Forde, Gerhard 435n., 438n. Forell, George 246n. Fox, George 48 Francesca, Piero della 543 Francis I, Pope 101, 588n., 589n. Franklin, Benjamin 21, 194 Frei, Hans 279n., 280, 334n. Freud, Sigmund 200–1, 203, 212 Fries, Heinrich ix, 554–5, 567 Gadamer, Hans-Georg 30, 132n., 340n. Galileo 469, 490, 572 Gatherrole, Simon 432n., 433n. Gaunilo 170 Geertz, Clifford 10, 14n. Gerhard, Johann and Aquinas 109 and Aristotle 87 on natural theology 151 on the object of theology 86, 109, 111, 521 on revelation 151, 256 on scriptural authority 325–6 Gerrish, Brian 98n., 150n., 239n., 252n., 276, 346n., 435n., 437n., 457, 482n. Gilkey, Langdon 225–7, 235, 417n., 547, 562n., 584 Gingerich, Owen 181n. Gleiser, Marcelo 209 Goethe, Johann xii, 475n., 507n. González-Andrieu, Cecilia 547n. Goppelt, Leonhard 285n., 409 Gosse, Philip Henry 572n. Gould, Stephen Jay 563, 583–4 Graham, Billy 47 Gray, Asa 560–1 Gregory of Nazianzus 76, 148n., 173–4 Gregory of Nyssa 76, 141, 148n. Gregory of Palamas 143n. Grenz, Stanley 107, 457, 461 Greyson, Bruce 7n. Grünewald, Matthias 543

Groothuis, Douglas 185n., 186n., 399n. Gutiérrez, Gustavo 101, 264 Hagenbach, Karl 482–4, 491 Hahn, Ferdinand 381n., 404n. Handel, George F. 272 Harnack, Adolph von 93–4, 114, 485 Harris, Sam 202, 203n. Hart, David Bentley 185n., 215–16, 234, 463, 547 Hartshorne, Charles 163n., 192n., 230–1 Harvey, Van 332n. Hauerwas, Stanley 105n., 280, 519 Haught, John 593–4, 596, 598–9 Havel, Vaclav 208, 219 Hawking, Stephen 565–6 Hayden, Franz Joseph 544 Heaney, Seamus 543 Hefner, Philip 93n., 594–5, 599 Hegel, Georg Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences 475 on God 192 and later Protestantism 94, 197 on the ontological argument for God’s existence 171–3 on philosophy and theology 91–2, 196, 475, 520, 538–9 Heidegger, Martin 200, 224 Helmer, Christine 281n. Hengel, Martin 365n., 366n., 368, 397n., 404n., 410–11 Henry VIII, King of England 42–3 Heppe, Heinrich 85n., 142n., 151n., 301n., 303n., 325n., 342n., 458 Herbert of Cherbury, Lord 153–4 Herder, Johann 348n. Herod Antipas 315, 383, 394, 397 Herod the Great 32n., 394 Herrmann, Wilhelm 93, 98n. Hesiod 66 Hick, John 171n., 172n., 234 Highton, Mike 522n., 551 Hilary of Poitiers 76 Hildegard of Bingen 80–1 Hitchens, Christopher 201n., 202–3, 210n., 219

Index of Persons Hitchens, Peter 219 Hitler, Adolf 17–18, 95, 245n., 310n. Hoefer, Herbert 390n. Hofmann, Johannes von 92, 257–9, 276, 285n., 335, 339–40, 365–6, 382, 409, 429, 483–4, 494 Homer 66 Hopewell, James 511n., 517 Howard, Thomas 90n., 334n., 460, 476n., 523n. Hubble, Edward 578 Hughes, Richard T. xi-xii, 528n., 532n. Hulme, William 245n. Hume, David 154–5, 171, 178, 193, 198, 200, 205, 218, 237, 391 Hurtado, Larry 404n., 411 Hus, John 44 Husserl, Edmund 225n. Hütter, Reinhard 556n. Huxley, Thomas 208–9 Irenaeus of Lyons 30, 74–5, 290, 293, 433n. Jackelèn, Antje 595 Jacobsen, Douglas 20n., 471n., 523n., 524n., 534n. Jacobsen, Rhonda Hustedt 20n., 471n., 523n., 524n., 534n. James, the brother of Jesus 251, 300, 369, 373–4, 451–2 James, William 9n., 187n., 225 Jaspers, Karl 4–8, 23, 161, 226–7, 584 Jeanrond, Werner 339n., 340n., 361–2 Jefferson, Thomas 21–2, 194 Jeffrey, David L. 544n. Jenkins, Philip 51n., 59 Jenson, Robert 89n., 108n., 415n., 416n., 458, 462 Jeremias, Joachim 380–1, 411 Jerome 76, 326n. Jesus of Nazareth apostolic witness to 116, 118–19, 123–6, 247, 288–300 birth of 32n., 94, 97, 425, 431, 445, 544 death of 30n., 369n., 382, 396–8, 431–2 dogmatic understandings of 39–40, 95, 427, 333–5, 376, 443–6

and language for God 14n., 80, 416 miracles of 333–6, 387–92, 544 parables of 385–7 resurrection of 29, 254, 258, 398–405, 425, 431–4, 440–1, 453 revelation of God in 74, 144, 424, 248–51 and the Scriptures 303–11, 315–18 titles for 33, 273, 365, 384, 404, 424 Joest, Wilfried ix John XXIII, Pope 222 John, the Apostle 147, 162, 413 John the Baptist 299n., 354, 370, 373, 383–4, 394, 396 John of the Cross 142, 241 John of Damascus 77, 83n., 141, 545 John Paul II, Pope 222, 533n., 583 John the Scot (“Eriugena”) 78 Johnson, Elisabeth 562 Johnson, Luke Timothy 295, 411 Johnson, Philip 574n. Johnson, Todd 1n., 46n., 50n., 51n., 53n., 57 Johnston, Mark 210, 211n. Jones, John 575 Josephus, Flavius 299, 373–4 Judas Iscariot 315, 383, 397, 450 Julian of Norwich 80–1 Jüngel, Eberhard 143n., 234, 258, 260 Justin Martyr 73–4, 289, 296 Justinian I, Emperor 37 Kaftan, Julius 93 Kähler, Martin 334, 379–80, 411 Kant, Immanuel on epistemology 194, 538 and later Protestantism 94–5, 104, 497 on the moral argument for God’s existence 155, 172–3, 183, 196, 242 on moral philosophy 89 as rational theist 210 on Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone 9, 89 on traditional arguments for God’s existence 130, 155, 171, 178, 194–6 Käsemann, Ernst 322, 377n. Katz, Stephen 198n., 227–8 Kaufman, Gordon 102n., 235 Kelly, Latimore 543

707

708

Index of Persons Kelsey, David x, 10n., 322, 478n., 492 Kepler, Johannes 577 Kepnes, Steven 18n., 114 Kermode, Frank 337n. Kierkegaard, Søren 97, 187, 260, 526n. King, Martin Luther Jr. 16 Kinnamon, Michael 538n. Knowles, David 467n., 491 Kobes, Kristen Du Mez 15n. Kolakowski, Leszek 14 Krentz, Edgar 333n., 381n. Küng, Hans 7n., 103, 212n., 217–18, 234, 516, 536 LaCugna, Catherine M. 416n. Laplace, Simon-Pierre 558 Lathrup, Gordon 518 Leeuw, Gerardus van der 222n., 225 Leibniz, Gottfried 173, 206 Leo I, Pope 76, 428n. Lewis, C. S. 183–4, 391n., 399, 411, 543 Lewontin, Richard 204 Lincoln, Bruce 14n. Lindbeck, George 105, 280–1 Lindberg, David 556n. Lindsell, Harold 323n. Livingston, James 8n., 10n., 25, 154n., 192n., 198n. Livingstone, David 50 Locke, John 154 Lohse, Bernhard 243n., 318n., 346n. Lonergan, Bernard 103–4, 221, 516 Lüdemann, Gerd 294–5, 335n. Ludwig, Theodore M. 13n. Luther, Martin on the bondage of the human will 45 and “Christ and culture in paradox” 529 on the Creator 243, 577–8 on the damnation of Christ 403, 432 on faith 162, 202, 251–2, 270, 436–7, 440 on the First Commandment 414–16, 546 as heretic 496 on the “hidden God” 240–2, 423, 435 and images 546, 548n. on law and gospel 152, 252, 254, 289, 315– 16, 353, 435 on “marks of the church” 447–8

on music 541–2 on natural theology 125, 150–1, 237 on the nature of theology 82–3, 354–6 on reason 152, 577–8 reforms by 42–4, 501 on Scripture 300–1, 309n., 315 on the term evangelical 46n. on the term God 2–3 on theology of the cross 264, 423 Luzin, Nikolai 555 Lyotard, Jean-François 208 MacCulloch, Diarmaid 37n., 451n., 59–60 MacHaffie, Barbara J. 506n. MacIntyre, Alisdair 30–1, 519 Mack, Burton 378 Macrina 76n., 148n. Maier, Paul 289n., 373n. Maimonides 82n. Malcolm, Norman 170, 171n. Marcion of Sinope 291–2, 306, 309 Marsden, George 117n., 523n., 531, 551 Marshall, Bruce 105n. Marty, Martin E. 39, 46n., 61, 601–4 Marty, Peter 214 Marx, Karl 14, 92, 197–8, 200, 203n., 210, 212, 214, 219–20 Mary Magdalene 330, 401, 451 Mary, the mother of Jesus 38–40, 42, 383, 435–7, 429, 544–5 Mathes, Melissa 8n. Mattes, Mark 110n., 114, 543n., 553, 566 McFague, Sallie 102n., 103n., 264, 416n. McGovern, George 16 McGrath, Alister E. 60, 107–8, 114, 135, 181n., 182n., 203n., 219, 238, 461, 523, 571n., 589, 595–6 Meier, John 299n., 411 Melanchthon, Philip 84–5, 98n., 150–1, 157, 312, 478, 529 Metzger, Bruce 290n., 296n., 322 Meyer, Stephen C. 574–5 Michelangelo 543 Midgley, Mary 523, 563n., 589 Migliore, Daniel xii, 121, 135, 166, 247n., 324n., 339n., 458 Milbank, John 212n., 566, 599

Index of Persons Miller, Eddie L. 113, 169n., 177n., 245n. Miller, Kenneth 563n., 576n. Miller, Malcolm 541n. Miller, Paul 15n. Miller, William 47 Milton, John 206n., 543 Moffatt, Robert 50 Moltmann, Jürgen 101, 135, 143, 215, 365n., 439, 459, 461–2 Montanus 292, 393 Moon, Charlotte 50 Moses 39, 69–70, 141, 210n., 238, 247–8, 304, 308, 325, 348–9, 364, 367, 392–3, 435, 444 Moule, C. F. D. 290n. Mozart, Amadeus 365n., 542 Murphy, George L. 565, 566n., 599 Murphy, Nancey 189, 568n., 589n., 592, 599 Nagel, Thomas 181n., 204 Nestorius 39n., 428n. Newberg, Andrew B. 228–9, 570n. Newman, John Henry Cardinal 528 Newton, Isaac 211, 556, 558 Nickel, Joel 548n. Niebuhr, H. Richard 257, 276, 525–31, 551 Niebuhr, Reinhold 460, 561, 567n. Nietzsche, Friedrich 14, 158, 198–200, 203, 210, 212, 220–2 Nolde, Emil 548 Numbers, Ronald 556n., 563n., 572n. Ockham, William 346 O’Collins, Gerald ix, 166, 181n., 296n., 401n, 410, 461, 516 Ogden, Schubert 135, 192n., 218n., 235, 492 Oppy, Graham 204–5, 234 Origen 72–4, 78, 256, 283 Otto, Rudolf 8–9, 162, 225, 227, 242 Pagels, Elaine 293–4, 297 Paley, William 176, 557–8 Palmer, Phoebe 48 Panaetius of Rhodes 67 Pannenberg, Wolfhart on biblical interpretation 348 criticism of Barth by 161, 261, 485

criticism of feminist and liberation theologians by 109, 264 on God 109, 231, 258, 458, 596 on history 258, 261 on the object of theology 124 on religious experience 229–30 on revelation 123, 144n., 150, 161–2, 227, 257–60, 276 on Scripture and tradition 347–8 on theology as an academic discipline 108–9, 520–1 on theology and the philosophy of science 492, 517, 565, 599 on truth claims 109, 229–30, 499–500 Papias 289, 296 Parks, Sharon Daloz 18n. Parmenides 64 Pascal, Blaise 169n, 186, 240 Patrick, missionary to the Irish 50 Paul of Tarsus (Apostle Paul or Saint Paul) birth of 30n. and classical ideals 538, 548 death of 30n., 35 on death and resurrection of Jesus 29–30, 251, 369–71, 400–3, 435, 438 on faith and love 244–5, 330, 514–5 on “general revelation” 146–50, 162–3, 238 on the incomprehensibility of God 140, 152 on law and gospel 72, 251, 283, 291, 308, 315, 366, 431 missionary work of 34–5, 49 “new perspective” on 420n. as opponent of early Christians 33, 399 on “special revelation” 144, 152, 246, 249 on the Spirit 442, 452 and “tradition” 29, 288, 369 on the wrath of God 146, 261 writings about 412–13 writings by 33, 290–2, 296–7, 300–1, 307–8, 327 Peacocke, Arthur 589–90, 599 Peck, M. Scott 389n. Pelikan, Jaroslav on Arius 426n. on Bach 542 on Bonaventure 149n.

709

710

Index of Persons on Christianity and classical culture 75n., 148n. on theology as a university discipline 120n., 122–3 on “tradition” xii, 29, 59, 115 Perrin, Norman 381n., 411 Peter (Apostle Peter or Saint Peter) 36, 283, 296, 330, 397, 401, 404, 451 Peter Lomboard 80 Peters, Ted 332n., 462, 551, 564–5, 583, 586, 591–2, 599 Peterson, Gregory 228n., 229n., 569n. Philo of Alexandria 70, 73, 78 Phoebe (co-worker with the apostle Paul) 49 Piehl, Mel 523n., 524n. Pieper, Francis 281, 326, 572 Pieper, Josef 31n. Pilate, Pontius 38, 40, 249, 299, 315, 370, 373–4, 381–4, 397 Plantinga, Alvin 182–3, 189, 229, 565n. Plato 64n., 65, 67, 73, 85, 92, 121, 175 Plotinus 65, 74n. Polkinghorne, John 181n., 564, 590, 596n., 599–600 Preus, Samuel J. 535n. Priscilla (co-worker with the apostle Paul) 49 Proclus 65–6, 74n. Proudfoot, Wayne 227–8 Provine, William 563 Pythagoras 167 Rad, Gerhard von 285n., 304, 409 Rade, Martin 93 Rahner, Karl 100, 159, 166, 227, 332n., 429, 493, 516–17, 539 Reimarus, H. S. 376, 378 Rembrandt 543 Ricci, Matteo 50 Ricoeur, Paul on distanciation 130n. on hermeneutics 276, 340n., 341, 362 on the “masters of suspicion” 203n., 219n. and the “second naïveté” 23, 122 and the “surplus of meaning” 227 on the “wager” of theology 132 Ritschl, Albrecht 93, 157, 421, 527 Rodriguez, Rubén Rosario 102n.

Rogers, Carl 21 Rogers, Fred 17 Rosenstock-Huessy, Eugen 601–3 Rowland, Christopher 102n. Rubenstein, Richard L. Jr. 207–8, 214 Rüegg, Walter 467n, 468 Ruether, Rosemary Radford 103, 416n. Russell, Bertrand 113 Russell, Robert John 590–1 Sanders, E. P. 69n., 299n., 373n., 377–8, 381– 4, 411, 413, 420n. Sasse, Hermann 323n., 582n. Schaff, Philip 483 Schelling, Friedrich W. J. 192n., 475 Schjeldahl, Peter 219 Schlatter, Adolf 379 Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E. and art 547 Brief Outline by 91, 479–80, 483, 493–4 on the “feeling of absolute dependence” 9n., 90–1, 155–7, 160 on historical theology 479–80 on Jesus/christology 428 and later Protestantism 94, 98, 157, 484, 497 on the object of theology 480 on the Old Testament 301 on philosophical theology 479 and philosophy 488 and post-liberals 104–5 and the practical orientation of theology 102, 117, 125, 482–4, 486, 489, 510 on practical theology 479, 482, 489 on religious experience 91, 93, 98, 156–7, 162, 480, 521 on science 270 on theology as a university discipline 89– 90, 282, 469, 471, 479–80, 521 on the wrath of God 421 Schlink, Edmund on believing and knowing 266–71 on the Chalcedonian Definition 429 and dogmatics 459 and ecumenism xiii on historical criticism 333n., 378n. on the Holy Spirit 442n.

Index of Persons on Jesus 425n., 434n. on the kingdom of God 386 on law and gospel 345n. and the Lutheran Confessions 313n. and music 542 on the name of God 416–17 on the object of theology 108, 110 on revelation 142, 161, 166, 257 on Scripture 322 on the structure of faith statements 271–4 and tradition 54 on the Trinity 446n., 596 Schmid, Heinrich 85n., 86n., 326n., 342n., 459, 520 Schwarz, Hans 234, 460, 557n., 560–1, 565n., 568n., 600 Schwehn, Mark 511n. Schweitzer, Albert 334n., 335, 376, 378–9, 412 Schwöbel, Christoph 124, 125n., 144n., 277, 462 Scotus, Duns 145 Semler, Johann S. 88, 479, 504 Serrano, Andres 544 Shaw, Mabel 50 Shriver, Sargent 16 Simon, Arthur 17 Simpson, George Gaylord 563 Sittler, Joseph 586n. Smith, Christian 11 Smith, Jonathan Z. 525n. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell 536 Sobel, Jordan Howard 204–5, 234 Sobrino, Jon 264 Socrates 64–5, 73, 85 Solberg, Richard 528n. Spencer, Herbert 562 Spener, Philipp Jakob 88 Spinoza, Baruch 191, 210 Sponheim, Paul 166, 265n. Springsteen, Bruce 542n. Steiner, George 544n. Stendahl, Krister 352, 353n., 420n. Stenger, Victor 203n. Stewart, David 184n. Strauss, David F. 197, 338, 481n. Streeter, B. H. 371–2, 412 Stuhlmacher, Peter 381n., 410, 461

Stump, J. B. 562n., 575n., 580n., 591n., 600 Suetonius 373–4 Swinburne, Richard 179–80, 189, 277, 390n., 401n., 462, 592, 596 Tacitus 374 Tanner, Kathryn 340n., 456 Taylor, Charles 218n., 222, 568n. Taylor, Vincent 401n. Templeton, John Marks 591n. Tennant, Frederick R. 178–9 Teresa of Ávila 86–7, 142 (Mother) Teresa of Calcutta 222, 241n. Tertullian 67, 74, 95, 141, 148, 444, 477 and “Christ against culture” 148, 237, 270, 526, 538 Theodore of Mopseustia 39n. Thielicke, Helmut 144n., 146, 166, 322, 436n. Thiemann, Ronald 277, 422n. Tiberius, Emperor 374, 383 Tillich, Paul on art 547 criticism of process theology by 230 on God 3, 192, 194, 230–1, 242, 245, 261–3, 417n., 459 on historical criticism 333 on the human “situation” 128 on the influence of “culture” on the Bible 314 influence on later theologians by 100–4, 226 method of correlation by 99–100, 135, 536 on natural theology 159–61, 166 on the “new being” 439, 459 on revelation 262–3 on “ultimate concern” 3, 8–9, 160–3, 225, 227 and “ultimate” questions in science 567n. Tindal, Matthew 154 Tipler, Frank 571n. Toland, John 154 Tolstoy, Leo 122n., 526 Torrance, Thomas 585, 596 Tracy, David ix, 135, 226–7, 279, 340n., 505n., 517, 536, 584–5 Troeltsch, Ernst 332–3, 362, 484, 500 Tylor, E. B. 8

711

712

Index of Persons Ussher, James 560n. Vainio, Olli-Pekka 571n. Valla, Lorenzo 507 Varghese, Roy Abraham 180n. Volf, Miroslav 13n., 135 Voltaire 206 Voskamp, Ann 187n. Ward, Keith 168n., 190, 203n., 221n. Weber, Max 122n. Weber, Otto 159n. Webster, John 322 Weil, Simone 87n. Weiser, Artur 253n., 254n. Weiss, Johannes 376 Wesley, Charles 45 Wesley, John 45, 88 White, Lynn Jr. 587–8 Whitefield, George 45 Whitehead, Alfred North 9, 192n. Wiesel, Elie 214

Wilken, Robert 504 Williams, Rowan 203n., 543n., 553 Wilson, A. N., 219 Wilson, E. O. 564 Wiman, Christian 244n., 544 Wink, Walter 389n. Wolpert, Lewis 203n. Wrede, William 338, 376–7 Wright, N. T. 381–2, 390–4, 398n., 411–12, 420n., 433n., 463 Wyman, Walter E. 484n. Xavier, Frances 50 Xenophanes 64 Xenophon 85 Yearwood, Lennox Jr. 16 Yinger, John Milton 10 Zinzendorf, Nikolaus von 44–5, 88 Zurlo, Gina A. 1n., 46n., 50n., 53n., 57–8 Zwingli, Ulrich 42–5

Index of Scripture References

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis (Gen.) 1–2 1–3 1–11 1.1 1.24-31 1.26-27 1.27 1.28 2.7 3.22 6.5 8.21 10.8 11 15 15.12 12–50 12.1-3 17.5 19.23 18-32 20–22 32 Exodus (Exod.) 1–20 3.12 3.14 4.21-23 4.24-26 12.37 13–40 15.1-18

20

573 351, 581 304, 314, 351, 367 46, 177, 262, 284, 366 418 148, 158, 163, 418, 441, 587, 650 545 587 418, 440 444 209 209 327 139, 441, 444 364 330 351 70, 144, 247–8, 285, 304, 367, 371, 415 70 330 247 253 240, 651 415 238 231n., 247, 404, 444 349 348–9 329 247 305

20.2-3 20.3 20.4 20.7 21.7 24.9-18 33.18-23 34.5-9 34.6-7 Leviticus (Lev.) 1.1ff. 9.23 15.19-24 16.21 19.18 20.9 Numbers (Num.) 6.24-26 12.5-9 14.10 20.6 Deuteronomy (Deut.) 1.1ff. 2.31-35 3.6 6.4 6.4-5 6.20-24 22 23.1-8 24 26.5-9 32.10-18 34.1-12 Joshua (Josh.) 1.1ff.

70, 284, 364, 367, 419 69 414, 421 545 69, 231n., 417 331 141 141, 435 247 248, 430 307–8 247 307 432 70 349 367 247 247 247 247, 303, 307–8 349 349 69, 414, 444 241 305 307 307 393 304 416 325 303

714

Index of Scripture References 8–11 10 12.1-13 1 Samuel (1 Sam.) 2.8 10.18 2 Samuel (2 Sam.) 7 7.4-17 7.13-14 7.16 8.4 1 Kings 4.26 19.11-18 1 Chronicles (1 Chron.) 18.4 19.18 2 Chronicles (2 Chron.) 9.25 13.17 Ezra 1.1ff. Nehemiah (Neh.) 1.1ff. Esther 1.1ff. Job 1.1ff.

2.3 3.1 7.20 9.7 15.8 26.14 28 30.4-7 38 Psalms (Ps.) 2 5 8 8.4 10.1

349 330, 572 305 330–1 329 364, 367, 415 305 396 144, 247, 285, 371, 395 329 329 247 329 329 329 330 309, 636 309 303, 309 140n., 187, 205–6, 214–16, 240, 244–5, 306, 648 242 242 239, 242 330 140 187 140n. 240 247 384 83n. 306 522, 549 240

10.14 14.1 14.1-3 19 19.1 19.1-4a 19.4b-6 19.9 22 23.1-4 33 33.6 36.8 36.9b 37 44 44.24 51 51.5 61.4 65 72 72.17 73 73.3 77–78 80–82 89 90 104–107 111.10 119 119.72 119.89 119.98-100 130.3-4 135 139.6 139.7-10 143.10 145 145.3 Proverbs (Prov.) 1.1ff. 8 Ecclesiastes (Eccl.) 1.1ff.

246 169 209 306 163 140n., 284, 572–3 330 253 205, 215, 246 246 306 262, 284 253 602 140n. 306 240 83, 242n., 327 209 416 306 587 424 215 242 306 306 253n. 242n. 306 253 306, 354 355 284 356 438 306 139–40 440 444 306 140 140, 303, 306 38n., 306, 444, 557 140, 306

Index of Scripture References Isaiah (Isa.) 1.1ff. 6 6.5 6.8 7.9 8.13 8.17 9.17 11.2 24–27 30.2 40.5 40.13 40.28 40.31 41.8 43.13 44.6-7 45.7 45.13 45.15 45.23 52.3-4 53 53.2 55.8-9 56.3-8 61.1-2 63.9-10 Jeremiah (Jer.) 1.1ff. 4.3 23.18 23.29 45 Ezekiel (Ezek.) 1.1ff. 36.27 37.14 Daniel (Dan.) 1.1ff. 7.9-10 Hosea (Hos.) 1.1 Joel 1.1

303, 325 247 241 444 79 253 253 209 253 305 253 453 140 85 253 384 240 240 240 238 140 404 336 247, 369n. 548n. 140, 240 307 251 444 303, 325 336 140 262 245 303, 305 439 439 303, 305, 309n. 404 336 336

2 406 2.28-29 439–41 Amos (Am.) 1.2 284 3.1 284 Zephaniah (Zeph.) 1.14-15 421 Zechariah 1.1ff. 305, 330 9.9 395 14.21 395 The Wisdom of Solomon 1.1ff. 140n., 309n. 7.24-25 440 13.2-5 147 Ecclesiasticus 1.1ff. 301n., 309 1 Maccabees (1 Macc.) 1.1ff. 309 12.9 284n. 2 Maccabees (2 Macc.) 1.1ff. 309 4 Esdras 1.1ff. 309n. 1.30 14n. NEW TESTAMENT Matthew (Mt.) 1.1 4.1-11 4.4-16 4.23 5-7 5.1-12 5.8 5.17-18 5.21-28 5.27-30 5.38-48 5.43-44 6.6 6.9 6.9-10 6.10 6.16 7.12

247, 304–5, 371 330 306 387 306n., 349 386–7 386 306 393 351 349 393 354 415 388 386 387 419

715

716

Index of Scripture References 8.5-13 8.16 9.13 9.15 10.9-10 10.20 10.37 11.5 11.12 11.23-24 11.27 11.28-29 12.6 13.44 14.1-13 15.24 16.16 16.18 16.18-19 17.2 19.3-12 21–28 22.2-14 22.37-39 23.37 25.57-68 25.40 26.26-29 26.28 26.61 26.64 27.9 27.51 27.62 28 28.2-7 28.17 28.18 28.19 28.19-20 Mark (Mk) 1.1 1.11 1.14 1.14-15 1.15 1.15-16

387 389 395 387 330 286 349 387 384 385 141, 145, 249 145 396n. 386 394 385 424 448 407, 451 143n. 393n. 395 386 241 416 330 215 449 656 396n. 397 330 396n. 396 402 330 404 20, 49, 249 436, 449 14n., 273, 405 247, 250 384 431 251, 407, 646 386–7 643

1.34 1.44 2.4 2.7 2.17 2.23-28 2.27 3.1-6 4.31 4.31-32 4.35-41 5.35-43 6.8-9 7 7.18-20 7.21-23 7.24-30 7.31 8.27-30 8.29 8.30 8.31-32 8.34 8.38 9.2-8 10.2-12 10.11-12 10.17-31 10.41-45 10.42-44 11.27-33 11.30-33 12.28-34 12.29-31 13 13.11 13.32 14.22-24 14.25 14.53-65 14.58 14.61-62 15.34 15.42 16.1-8 16.5

389 392 330 393 385 392 393 392 331 386 387 387 330 306n., 307 393 352 387 330 33 424 338n. 394 214 5 141, 247 393 393n. 349 588 407 396 384 70 392, 414 396 286 386 449 386 330 396 397 205, 240, 397, 408, 434 396 247, 401–2 330

Index of Scripture References Luke (Lk.) 1.1-4 1.2 2.10-11 2.14 3.23 4.1-13 4.16-21 4.18-19 5.19 5.21 6.20-26 7.1-10 7.18-35 7.22 7.49 8.36 9.3 9.55 9.59-60 10.12 10.22 10.29-37 11.2 11.2-4 11.20 12.35-48 13.31-33 13.34 15 16.16 16.18 19–24 19 19.45-46 22.15-20 22.36-38 22.54-71 22.67-70 23.42-43 23.54 24 24.4 24.13-35 24.26-27 24.27 24.27-49

296–7, 325, 372 299 251 272 383 330 371, 386 251 330 393 386–7 387 384 387 393 392 330 390 349 385 249 385 415 386–7 387 387 394 14n. 385–6 384 393n. 395 433 388 449 349 330 397 387–8, 580 396 315, 557 330 401–2 395 306 287, 316

24.34 24.45-48 John (Jn) 1.1-18 1.1-14 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.41 2.19-22 3.1-17 3.16 4 5.17 5.18 5.39 6 6.15 7.14-18 7.53ff. 8.6 8.58 10.33 10.35 12.49-50 14–16 14.7 14.2 14.26 15.26-27 16.13-15 16.14 17 18.13-34 19.31 19.38-42 20–21 20 20.11-18 20.31 21.4-14 21.15-19

451 286 284, 404, 425, 557, 652 424 543 425 147, 557 161 75, 250, 381, 396n. 308, 430 139, 141, 250, 259 33 396 434 327, 652 307 573 306n. 285, 287, 315, 557 449 389 79n. 307 288 425 306n. 306 259 293 250 405 336, 443 442 440 443 xi 330 396 398 402 330, 451 402 286, 335, 424 402 451

717

718

Index of Scripture References Acts 1 1.8 1.9-11 1.12-26 2 2.4 2.11 2.17 2.36 2.38 2.40-47 3.21 4.12 4.20 7.59-60 9 10.34-44 10.43 11.26 13.16-41 13.46 14.16-17 15 15.28-29 17 17.5 17.22-31 17.28 17.34 18.2-4 18.12 18.24-28 20.35 22.3-21 26.28 Romans (Rom.) 1–2 1.15-17 1.18-23 1.18-20 1.18 1.19-20 1.19 1.20 2.1

402 49, 286, 406 637 450 48, 247, 406, 439, 441, 658, 666 286 440 440 398 449 449 453 243 382 426 402 295 315, 449 22 295, 370–1 336 147 300, 451 331 163 36 147, 295 149 611 49 36 49 289 295 32 573 251 146 158 158, 260, 421 162 261n. 141, 150, 161, 422–3 422–3

2.5 2.15 3.2 3.6 3.10-12 3.20 3.21 3.25 3.28 4.5 4.7 4.14-15 4.24 5.1 5.8-9 6.1-11 6.1 6.4-11 6.4 6.15 7.4-6 7.18-19 8.1 8.1-4 8.7 8.11 8.14-17 8.18-39 8.23 8.26 8.32-33 8.38-39 9–11 9.5 9.11 10.4 10.9-10 10.14 10.17 11.1-10 11.32 11.33-34 11.33 11.36 12.2 12.6-8 13

421 147 72 423 209 420 315 433 330 433 433 308 398, 415 433 433 431 405, 449 434 450 308 308 420 438 432 209, 421 398 441 216 434 441–2 244 405, 438 438 425–6 244 306n., 308 254, 317, 398, 437 246 437 244 366 140 267 140, 272 434 452 331

Index of Scripture References 16.1-3 16.17 16.25-26 16.27 1 Corinthians (1 Cor.) 1 1.7 1.14-16 1.18 1.20-31 1.23 1.26-30 2.1-2 2.2 2.4-5 2.10-12 2.11 2.14-16 3.15 3.16-17 3.21-23 5.5 6.11 6.14 6.19 7.10 8 8.4 8.6 11 11.2 11.23-26 11.23 12-14 12.1 12.7 12.28 12.31 13 13.9 13.12 14 14.1 14.33b-36 15 15.1-11

49 450 144, 250 272 557 266 327 434 549 369 35 370 315 370 249 140 152 433 396n. 268 433 449 398 396n. 289 331 414 418, 425 352–3 296 449 289, 296 452 443 441–2 452 452 406 499 140, 418, 453 48 443 352 402 247, 289, 295–6

15.1-8 15.1-5 15.3-11 15.3-8 15.3 15.5 15.8-10 15.13-20 15.17 15.22 15.28 15.35-58 15.45 15.49 15.50 15.55-56 16.22 2 Corinthians (2 Cor.) 3.6 3.18 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.7-12 5.1-10 5.10 5.17 5.18-19 5.19-21 5.19 5.20-21 5.20 5.21 6.10 6.16 8.9 12.7-10 12.8 Galatians (Gal.) 1-2 1 1.1 1.4 1.8-9 1.11-17 1.11

251, 369, 394, 407, 431, 643, 646, 666 30 254 398, 401 433 401, 451 450 399 433 581 405 401 424 404, 434 401 434 426 317 434 160 434 144 336 434 433 434, 439 370 366 248, 431, 661 403 424, 431 432 442 396n., 441 433 442 426 400, 402 336 290 432–3 55 290 286

719

720

Index of Scripture References 1.12 1.18 2.5 2.14 2.15-21 2.16 2.19-21 2.19-20 3.3 3.13 3.19 3.24-26 3.26-29 3.26-28 3.28 4.3 4.6-7 4.6 4.8 5 5.1 5.6 5.13 5.21-26 5.22-26 5.22-23 5.22 Ephesians (Eph.) 1.3-14 1.8-10 2.2 2.8 2.14-16 2.15-16 2.15 2.20-22 2.21 3.9 3.14 4.4-6 4.11 4.24 5.9 5.22-24 5.26 6.5-9 6.12

450 451 283, 431 283, 431 433 330 251 438 433 397 433 308 35 449, 433 441, 331 216 433 441 162 407 308 514, 343 344 434 331 244 442 244 431 216 433 433 308–9 306n., 309 451 396n. 250 418 436n. 452 434 442 352 449 352–3 109

Philippians (Phil.) 2.6-11 429 2.9-11 404 3 400 3.2-4 308 3.3-14 251 3.10-11 402 3.21 441 4.3 49 4.8 548 Colossians (Col.) 1 424 1.7 49 1.15 141, 424, 434, 545 1.16-17 425 1.26 250 2.9 396n., 425 2.12-13 449 2.20 308 3.3-4 405 3.3 434, 439 3.4 266, 439 3.18-25 352 4.16 290 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess.) 1.10 398 2.13 286, 336 4.15 289 4.17 366 5.19 443 2 Thessalonians (2 Thess.) 1.17 266 2.13-14 244 2.15 296 1 Timothy (1 Tim.) 1.17 141, 272 2.4 244n., 424 2.9-15 352 3.16 250 6.1-2 352 6.16 139, 423 2 Timothy (2 Tim.) 3.15-16 336 3.15 81 3.16-17 286 3.16 284 4.18 426

Index of Scripture References Titus (Tit.) 1.9 2.13 3 3.5-8 Hebrews (Heb.) 1 1.1-10 1.1-4 1.1-3 1.2-4 1.3 5.12 6.1-4 6.1-3 9.15 10.22 11 11.1 12.29 13.8 James (Jas.) 2.10 2.24 5.14 1 Peter (1 Pet.) 1.2 1.3-5 1.3 1.7 1.13 1.21 1.23-25 1.25 2.13-17 2.17-25 3.15-16 4.3 4.10 4.11 4.16 4.17

129 425 434 449 424 425 247 250 404 424 72 301 330 656 449 254 271 242 284 420 330 448n. 244 406 434, 453 266 266 254, 336 284 317 331 352 xiii, 502 266 452 72 32 490

5.1 5.5 2 Peter (2 Pet.) 1.1 1.17-18 1.20-21 1.21 3.16 3.18 1 John (1 Jn.) 1.1 1.1-2 1.9 2.2 3.2 3.8 3.16 4.1 4.2-3 4.7-10 4.8 4.9-12 5.20 Revelation (Rev.) 1.2 4.11 7.12 7.17 16.16 19.1-10 20 21 21.22 21.27

266 356 425 79n. 286 284 291 426 299 249 147, 330 433 404, 434 434 431 443 55, 426 430, 652 143, 421, 436 143 425 336 272 272 404 15 272 366 453 396n. 438n.

APOSTOLIC FATHERS 1 Clement 2 Clement Epistle of Barnabas Didache Shepherd of Hermas

284n., 289n., 291 284n. 284n., 292 292–3, 295 284n., 292–3, 295–6

721

722

Index of Subjects

a posteriori see God a priori see God abbess 80 absolution 448 academic freedom 118–20, 471, 529, 533 academic theology and Barth 484–5 as a formal way into theology 18– 23, 116–18 goals of xv, 118–32, 468 and the humanities 520–49 see also humanities marginalization of 90–1, 117–18, 470, 531, 603–4 in medieval universities 78–82, 130, 142, 346, 467–9, 474–8, 521, 535, 539 see also universities and Pannenberg 485 poor forms of 22 and Schleiermacher 90–1, 117 see also theology, divisions of in seminaries 117–20, 509–10 as an undergraduate discipline viii–xv, 18, 23, 116–32, 472–7, 485–90 see also doctrinal theology; historical theology; philosophical theology; post-liberal theology practical theology; revisionist theology; theology academic virtues 22, 335, 468–9, 527 Adventist Churches 47, 52 aestheticism 337–9 Africa 36–7, 48–51, 325 agnostic/agnosticism 53, 208–9, 216–18, 472, 561n. Anabaptists 44, 46, 449n., 526 analogy see God, and analogy

analogy of faith 343–4, 350 see also rule of faith anchorite 80 Anfechtungen 241, 244, 355 Anglican Church 43–6, 48, 52, 313n. anno domini (AD) 32n. anthropic principle 570–1 anthropomorphism 66, 70, 215, 416, 421 antilegomena 292–4, 296–302, 311, 315, 325, 502 see also homologoumena antiquity (as a criterion of canonicity) 296– 7, 301 apocryphal writings 295–8, 301, 309, 290 apologetics 131 apologists, the Greek 73–5, 147–8, 163, 538, 578 apostasy 55, 76 apostles, the authority of 34–5, 42, 49, 254, 261, 265n., 289, 296–302, 336, 382, 407, 450–1 see also Scripture, authority of definition of 34 exhortation by 454 and the canonical Gospels see Gospels and non-Christian religions 163 and special revelation see special revelation as theologians 32, 72 see also gospel; law; Scripture; special revelation Apostles’ Creed, the 40, 249, 273, 312, 371, 415, 439–40, 446, 577 apostolicity (as a criterion of canonicity) 296, 301 Aquinas’s five ways to God 174–8 argument from causation 174–5, 177 argument from contingency 175 argument from degrees of perfection 175–6

724

Index of Subjects argument from design 176, 178 see also order, in the universe argument from motion 174, 177 Arianism 37–8, 426, 444, 504 Aristotelianism see Aristotle arts 469, 540–9 see also humanities; revelation, and art atheism/atheist in America 1n., 53–4 as a Christian temptation 209, 419 classic examples of 14, 92, 191, 193–201 criticism of 180–1, 183–4, 186, 210–18, 564–6, 570–1, 596 see also theism definition of 192n. modern origins of 193 “new atheists” 202–3, 210–11 in the philosophy of religion 204 and religious studies 201 see also religious studies and science 204–5, 563–6 sas an indemonstrable faith 212 Athens 111, 147–8, 237, 526 atonement 431–3 Augsburg Confession, the xi, 43, 312–13, 422n., 444, 448n., 478n., 581 baptism 38, 40, 42, 44, 46–8, 273, 384, 431, 436–7, 441, 447–50, 452, 581–2 see also sacraments Baptist churches 46–8, 52, 88, 107, 422n., 450 Barmen Declaration, the 95, 108, 157 Barth/Brunner debate 158–60, 164 BC 32n. beatific vision 73, 143n., 547 beauty 100n, 131, 148, 175–6, 179, 182, 185–7, 222–3, 544–9, 555, 576 Bible see biblical theology; Scripture biblical theology 285n., 365–71, 409–10, 481, 486–9, 494–5, 498, 501–4 see also salvation history biblicism 324–32, 482, 484, 496 see also fundamentalism; Scripture, inspiration of; Scripture, inerrancy of Big Bang 177, 398, 574, 586, 590 bishops chief duty of 36, 78, 129 and Donatism see Donatism

in the Eastern Orthodox Church see Eastern Orthodox Church, teaching office in marriage of 41–2, 44 in the Pauline mission 34–5 in the Roman Catholic Church see Roman Catholic Church, teaching office in and Scripture 296–7 theological study with 467 women as 19, 34–5, 49, 506n. see also women boundary situations/questions 4–6, 217–18, 226–7, 592 Brazil 51 Byzantium see Constantinople canon see Scripture “canon within the canon” 301–2, 315–16, 319 see also gospel canonical Gospels see Gospels catholic/catholicity (as a criterion of canonicity) 296–7, 301 Chalcedon, Council of 39–40, 427–9, 504 China 2, 16, 49–51, 193 Christ as center of Scripture 128–9, 315–18, 557 and culture see Niebuhr’s five types of relating faith and culture damnation of 316–18, 403, 431–3 death and resurrection of 33, 251–4, 368–9, 394–8, 431–5 of faith and Jesus of history 261, 333–6, 357, 378–83, 408, 500–1 as loving Mother 80 as the new human being 365–6 as the original of humanity 146–7 reveals God’s grace and love 248–50, 257, 423–6, 430 second coming of 46n., 47, 266 two natures of 39–40, 76–7, 424–30, 432 see also Logos; messiah Christians, population of 50–3 Christian humanism 119, 475, 529, 533 see also humanities Christianity as a cultural force 119

Index of Subjects early centers of 35–6, 297 essence of 93, 125, 156, 196–7, 201n., 480–3, 487–9 expansion of 35–7, 49–53 and Gentiles 35, 49, 250, 308–9 history of 35–53, 481, 500–1, 505–8 as a moral religion 9, 89 church and academic institutions see universities as an article of faith 38, 40, 446–7, 452–3 confessions of the 38–40, 43, 124, 311–14, 488, 495 definition of 446 Eastern see Eastern Orthodox Church history of the 35–53, 481, 500–1, 505–8 see also Christianity, history of; historical theology marks of the 48, 447 and ministry see ministry; order, in the church as a “mouth house” 289 and para-church organizations 495, 509– 12, 515 and prayer see prayer as a “public” of theology 104 and sacraments see sacraments and Scripture 265n., 290–3, 297, 300– 2, 312–14 and state 471 statistics of the 50–3 study of the see ecclesial studies and tradition see tradition, Christian unity of the xiii, 54–6, 446–7, 450–3, 478n. Western see Protestantism; Roman Catholic Church comparative theology 13, 20–1, 56, 120–32, 535–8 see also ecumenical dialogue confession (of faith), 116, 121, 273, 313, 369, 407, 424, 443–6, 451–2, 506 Congregational Church 45–6, 452 consonance see order, in the universe Constantinople 35–9, 42, 143n., 297, 426, 428n. contextual theology see liberation theology; feminist theology; political theology; revisionist theology

cosmology 281, 314, 330, 578–80, 586, 589–93 see also Big Bang; order, in the universe; mathematics creation as continuing (creatio continua) 415–17 and culture 525–33, 547–8 as fallen 71, 89, 109, 230, 305–6, 444, 528–9, 531 and God 238, 242, 247, 270, 310, 368–9, 414–23, 468, 556–71, 577–96 human “dominion” over 419, 587–8 and order see order, in the universe and science 210–12, 556–96 subordination in 259, 282, 331, 352 see also slavery; women as trustworthy 151–2, 577–8 as a way into theology 7 see also God, as Creator; natural knowledge of God; new creation; philosophical theology creationism 46n., 211, 560n., 572–4, 578, 582 creed 38, 313, 350, 426, 429, 446 see also Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed critical realism 119n., 557n. critical reflection 79–80, 121–3 culture, 119–21, 160–1, 226–7, 314, 525–33 deacon 34–5 death as a boundary situation 4–5, 227, 239 and evil 7–8, 214–16, 242 see also evil and evolution 580–1, 558–64, 586, 593–6 fear of 193 of God/gods 22–3, 198 as mystery 227, 240–1 and near-death experiences 6–7 “of the self ” 340 overcome by God 230, 248, 254, 258, 264, 283, 386, 398, 405–7, 418, 423–4, 433–4, 453, 586 and the wrath of God see God, wrath of; human beings, as sinners see also fate; gospel; human beings; Jesus of Nazareth, death and resurrection of; new creation Declaration of Independence, the 22n. Deism 22n., 153–4, 255, 415, 558, 591

725

726

Index of Subjects de-mythologizing 98 denominations 44–8, 52–3, 510–11 Deus absconditus see God, hiddenness of devil 207n., 242, 301, 355–6, 390 dialectical theology 94–8 disenchantment 122 Dispensational churches 47 divine revelation see God; revelation doctors of the church 76, 79, 504 doctrinal theology 487–90, 494, 498–9, 502–5, 513 see also dogma; dogmatics dogma 55, 94, 96n., 335, 347n., 348, 376, 382, 502–3 see also Christ, two natures of; Trinity dogmatics 96n., 98n., 108, 165–6, 456–9, 480–2, 502–3 see also doctrinal theology; dogma Donatism 76 doxology xv, 272–3, 429 Dulles’ five models see special revelation Eastern Orthodox Church early centers of 35–7 and ecumenical councils 37–8, 41–2, 44 male-only priesthood 19 population of 51 resistant to theological change 31–2, 37–8 teaching office in 35–7 Ebionites 290, 425 ecclesial studies 494–5, 499, 511–12 ecclesiology 447 see also church; ecclesial studies ecumenical councils 37–41, 44, 60, 312 see also Chalcedon, Council of; creed; Nicaea, Council of ecumenical dialogue 44, 313–14, 450, 451n., 535, 538n. eisegesis 341–2 elder see pastor; presbyter election see predestination empirical see God, reality of, a posteriori arguments for the encyclopedia 472n., 474–90 Enlightenment, the 123, 194–6, 335, 470, 479, 496, 532

episcopacy (as a criterion of canonicity) 296–7 see also bishops eschatology 258, 260, 378, 453, 463, 590 eschaton 258, 305, 453 see also Christ, second coming of; eschatology ethics 48, 168, 487, 489, 494–9, 510–15, 518– 19, 555, 584 see also theological ethics Eucharist see Lord’s Supper evangelical xi, 5, 15–16, 19, 43, 46, 84, 94–5, 107 see also gospel; Lutheran Church; Protestant, evangelicalism Evangelical-Lutheran see Lutheran Church evil believers affected by 17, 56, 203, 435–6, 447 denial of 264, 563 and free will 183n., 419, 514, 595 humans inevitably affected by 420, 595 overcome by God 17 see also death; gospel; Jesus of Nazareth, death and resurrection of as a reason for atheism 153, 185, 205–9 theological problem of 5, 8, 65, 67, 172– 3, 183n. world as 525–6 see also Gnostic/ Gnosticism, theodicy evolution 13n., 21, 46n., 179, 211, 281, 554n., 558–64, 569–77, 580, 583n., 586, 589– 96 see also theistic evolution exegesis 339, 341–2, 361–2, 481–4, 486–8 see also biblical theology existentialist theology 97–101, 108–9, 227, 241, 260–2, 371n., 380 faith analogy of 343, 350 see also rule of faith centers on Jesus 246–7, 372, 399, 404–5, 415–17, 440 as confidence 82, 123–4, 218n., 251–4, 417, 436–9 critically examined 120–32, 489 and ethics 495–6, 512–15 see also ethics; theological ethics and freedom 308, 344, 352–3, 419, 441 as gift of God 152, 246

Index of Subjects and history 376–84 and knowledge 266–71, 437–8, 554–96 as a mode of access to God 96, 123–5, 187, 431, 436 practical outcomes of 186–7, 436 as a response to the gospel 192, 260, 271–4, 352, 437, 494 as a risk 187, 244–5 rule of see rule of faith “seeking understanding” 79, 92, 111, 121, 176, 270 teaching about 91 as trust 98n., 123–4, 127, 129, 202, 218, 246, 253n., 254–7, 266–71 faith statements, types of 271–4 fate 4, 159, 199, 230, 239, 242, 435, 514, feminist theology 102–3, 109–10, 263–4, 378–9, 416, 432, 509–10, 514, 536 filioque 439n., 440n., 445, 446n., 640, 644 film, 473n., 534, 547, 549 First Commandment 69, 414, 412, 530, 546, see also law; Old Testament, laws in First Vatican Council 43, 150, 329, 347 Formula of Concord 43n., 252n., 300n., 311– 12, 502 four canonical Gospels see Gospels free will 4–5, 45–6, 239n., 514 see also human beings, as sinners fundamental theology viii–xi, 494–500 fundamentalism viii, 281–2, 323–32, 496, 482, 572–4 see also creationism general revelation see natural knowledge of God genre see Scripture, genres in Gentiles see Christianity, and Gentiles glory see God, glory of Gnostic/Gnosticism 30, 293–7, 306, 309–10, 427, 501, 527 God and America 15, 19, 129, 203 see also United States and analogy 14n., 142–3, 178, 350, 416–17, 446n., 546, 585 a posteriori arguments for the reality of 173–86 see also argument from causation; argument

from contingency; argument from degrees of perfection; argument from design; argument from motion; philosophical theology a priori arguments for the reality of 169–73 see also moral argument; ontological argument beyond “Being” 65, 74, 141–2, 192 as cause of moral order 172–3, 183– 4, 419–20 classic attributes of 74n., 157, 428, 462 condescension of see Logos, incarnation of as Creator 238, 247, 253, 270, 310, 368, 414–23, 468, 528, 556–96 as deceptive 153, 573 as designer 176–82, 194, 557–8, 574–7 as Father 14n., 38–41, 69, 103, 145, 216, 249–50, 259, 385, 388, 396, 415–18, 425–9, 443–6 as feminine 14n., 80–1, 87n., 416 glory of 140–6, 216, 223n., 249–50, 259, 266, 272, 274, 396n., 415, 435, 439, 453, 546 as the goal of human life 74, 81, 86, 150, 230, 418, 453, 521 as “ground of being” 417 hiddenness of 75n., 83n., 140, 150n., 236– 46, 249, 365, 366, 421–3, 436, 442, 498 as highest good 5, 65, 149, 155, 169, 521 incomprehensibility of 83, 87, 139–44, 187, 212, 239–42, 416, 445, 601 kingdom of 33, 93, 251, 264, 334n., 349, 376–8, 381–98, 403, 530–1 and love 70, 80, 143, 145, 248–50, 327, 386–7, 421, 430, 527 masks of 243–4 natural knowledge of see natural knowledge of God non-existence of 65–74, 141–2, 153, 171, 192 see also atheism non-objectivity of 97–8, 145, 156, 163, 169, 194–5, 274 as an open question 118, 565 names for 8–13, 153, 191, 220, 225–9, 231, 414–46

727

728

Index of Subjects reality of see natural knowledge of God; religious experience; revelation; special revelation revelation of see revelation, as divine selfgiving; special revelation; Trinity sense of 100, 151, 160–2, 182, 552 as “Supreme Being” 8, 153, 191, 195 as “that than which nothing greater can be thought” 169–71, 191, 204–5 as the most “tragic character” in the Bible 214 as uncaused cause 174–7 unforgettableness of 14 as unmoved mover 66–7, 174, 177, 192 as “Wholly Other” 8, 97–8, 125, 142, 212, 223–5, 229, 240 wrath of 150n., 158, 161, 216, 242, 248, 259–61, 316–17, 345, 384, 421–4, 431–3, 437n. see also Christ; Holy Spirit, the; law; Logos; monotheism; theism; Trinity Golden Rule, the 419 gospel, the Catholic and Protestant disagreement about 430–1 as “evangel” (“good news”) xi, 43, 84n., 250–2, 643, 646 as distinct from the law 83–4, 252, 259, 316–18, 331, 344–5, 528 see also law, the as divine blessing 247–8, 284, 367, 418, 423–4 as the forgiveness of sins 46n., 84, 160, 250–1, 431, 433, 449, 646 as oral proclamation see proclamation as the principal theme and norm in Christian theology 367, 453–5 the promissory character of 82, 129, 152, 253–4, 513–15 the truth of 109, 283, 302, 313, 329–32, 335, 344, 407, 431, 487, 498, 529, 535, 540 as a written document see Scripture; Gospels, Synoptic Gospels apocryphal 290, 295–9, 301, 646 genre of 250–1, 295, 334–5, 379–81, 408, 431

and the Gospel of John 34, 295, 330, 334n., 374–5, 665 reliability of 287, 294–7, 332, 347 Synoptic 34, 295, 330, 334n., 371–405, 410–12, 646, 665 grace “age of ” 317 see also new creation as context for ethics 515 “does not destroy nature” 527–8, 149, 422 see also natural knowledge of God as distinct from the law 83–4, 252, 259, 316–18, 331, 344–5, 528 as divine favor 238, 246, 251–2, 646 as divine gift 252, 422, 432, 595 and the human will 45 interior experience of 255, 262–3 means of see sacraments; word of God and reason 149–63, 267–71, 422–3, 527– 8, 533 revealed in Christ see Christ Hagenbach’s four sub-disciplines 482–4 heaven 7, 38, 40, 97, 210, 220, 395, 402, 404, 414–15, 418, 453, 547 Hebrew Scriptures see Old Testament Heilsgeschichte see salvation history henotheism 231, 647 see also monotheism heresy/heretic 40, 75–6, 129, 148n., 294, 496, 501, 647 hermeneutical circle 271, 304–1, 357, 488– 9, 648 hermeneutics definition of 121, 255, 323–4, 648 principles of x, 255, 342–54 as a process of understanding 121, 127–8, 130, 324, 342 high priest, Jewish 71, 288, 397, 660 higher disciplines/faculties see universities, higher faculties in historical critical method see historical criticism historical criticism 332–6, 348–9, 382, 648 historical theology 478–83, 486–90, 494–6, 500–8 historicism 332–6, 648 Hofmann’s three sub-disciplines 92, 483–4

Index of Subjects Holiness churches 45, 48, 52 Holocaust, the 14, 17–18, 214, 218, 310 holy, the 8, 12–13, 168, 220, 223, 230, 624 see also God; religious experience; ultimate concern Holy Spirit, the dogmatic understanding of 405–7, 439– 43, 461 fruit and gifts of 34, 152, 244–5, 406–7, 434, 442, 448, 452–3 as hidden 244 illumination by 339, 343 “internal witness by” 308–9 and music 542 outpouring of 35, 75, 247, 292, 371, 406–7, 452, 544 and Pentecostalism 48 procession of 41, 445–6, 439n. and the sacraments 448 and Scripture see Scripture, inspiration of and special revelation 246–7, 415 see also Trinity homologoumena 292, 299–302, 309, 312, 315, 335, 502 see also antilegomena hope xiii, 1, 17, 54, 129, 210, 213–14, 221n., 224, 253–4, 266, 344, 366–7, 395, 406, 441, 453 human beings as cooperators with God 243 as creatures 145, 158–9, 418–19, 468, 580–1, 586, 590 see also image of God divinization of 77, 404, 641 as inherently religious 161, 227 see also religious experience modern crisis of 208 moral weakness and strength of 514–16 paradoxical understanding of 317 and reason 79–82, 84–5, 125, 143, 149–55, 171–3, 237, 496–7, 529–30, 539, 554–96 self-understanding of 21, 100–1, 122, 128, 160, 187, 340, 472–3, 537 as sinners 160, 419–23, 316–17, 528 as wholly other from God 142, 212, 240 see also image of God; justification; God, wrath of

humanism see Christian humanism humanities 117–19, 122n., 130–2, 470–4, 520–49, 552–3 iconoclastic controversy 545–6, 649 icons 41, 324, 543–6 idolatry 69, 151, 157–8, 202, 219, 243, 270, 420, 536, 546, 583 image of God 145, 149, 158–9, 185, 418–19, 424, 434, 445n., 468–9, 545–6, 580–1, 586, 590, 650 incarnation see Logos inerrancy see Scripture, inerrancy of infallibility 43–4, 329, 347, 451n., 619, 650 see also Roman Catholic Church, teaching office in; Scripture, inerrancy of intelligent design theory 574–7, 597, 650 interdisciplinary studies viii–x, 21, 108–9, 118, 128, 471, 476, 496–8, 521–5, 533, 551, 569–70 Islam 10n., 12–13, 39, 50–1, 68, 169n., 174, 179, 191, 232, 467, 474, 535, 545– 6, 556 Jerusalem 35–6, 68, 71, 148, 297, 303, 307, 368–70, 382–3, 394–7, 452 Jews/Judaism and biblical interpretation 70, 73, 78, 307–8 and Christian faith 307–11, 439 and God see monotheism; God, as creator and the Holocaust see Holocaust, the as parent tradition of Christianity 13, 32–3, 35, 39, 68–72, 303–11, 345, 366–7, 380, 439 justification xii, 88, 97n., 110, 308, 330, 430–1, 433, 435, 449 karma 239 kenosis 429 kerygma see proclamation King James Bible 337 law, the abrogation of 307–11 as distinct from the gospel see gospel, the as a “higher faculty” see universities

729

730

Index of Subjects replaced by the Spirit 308, 434, 407, 442, 448 revelation of in the conscience 85, 99, 147, 151, 159, 184, 220, 419–21, 651 in nature 179–83, 238, 557–8, 576– 7, 589–96 in the Old Testament 69–70, 284, 303–9, 367–8, 383, 392, 651 lex orandi, lex credendi 12, 652 liberal arts, the 468, 471, 474, 511, 653, 664 liberation theology 101–2, 110 limit situation see boundary situation literal sense see sensus literalis literature 8, 222–3, 543–4 liturgy 44, 77, 83, 382, 447, 504, 511, 652 Logos, the definition of 2, 652 enlightenment by 147 incarnation of 75, 161, 247–9, 284, 391, 425, 545, 649–50, 652, 656 “of the same being as God” 76, 426–8, 649 as “the one word of God” 95–6, 157–8 see also creation; God; revelation; word of God Lord’s Supper 36, 42, 44, 288–9, 375, 396–7, 400, 406–7, 436, 447–52 see also sacraments love and the analogy of faith 343–4 see also faith faith active in 252, 343, 514–15 God is 143, 421, 430, 435–6, 652 lower disciplines/faculties see liberal arts; universities, lower faculties in Lutherans/Lutheran Church xii, 43, 88, 99, 212, 244n., 301–2, 313, 323, 430–1, 448, 450–1, 529, 546 magisterium see Roman Catholic Church, teaching office in mass see Lord’s Supper mathematics “Christian” 269, 531 and infinity 555 and knowledge 117, 132, 213 and music 8

and an orderly universe 7, 65, 186, 193, 211–13, 555–6, 576 see also order, in the universe theology as prior to 66 meditation 12, 83, 228, 354 messiah see Christ meta-narratives 208 metaphor 102n., 142–3, 255, 350, 375, 416n., 447, 549, 557, 584–5 metaphysics 63–8, 89–90, 113, 132, 156, 168, 193, 220–2, 555, 564, 583–5, 590 see also atheism; philosophical theology, process theology, theism method of correlation 99–101, 104, 654 see also revisionist theology Methodist Church 16, 45–8, 52 millennium see Christ, second coming of ministry of the church 117, 447–8, 450–3, 462–3, 482, 486, 489, 495–6, 654 miracles 180, 333, 335–6, 389–92, 399– 405, 411 monk 32n., 39n., 78–9, 82, 170, 207, 428n., 527, 655 monotheism 13, 70, 231–2, 443 moral argument 172–3, 183–6, 196 moral theology see theological ethics morals 184, 347n., 513–14 Moravian Church 44, 52 Muratorian Fragment 290 music 8, 80, 185, 222, 224, 468, 473n., 529, 534, 540–9 see also the arts; humanities mystics/mysticism 80–1, 86–9, 103, 141–3, 193, 220, 228–30, 272 myths 4n., 11, 13, 65–7, 72, 79, 92, 97, 262–3, 351, 477 narrative theology 337–9, 334n., 462n. see also post-liberal theology natural theology see philosophical theology neo-orthodoxy see dialectical theology neurotheology 228–9, 570n. see also science new creation 71, 248, 273, 302, 364, 370–1, 390, 399, 403, 405–7, 430, 439, 447, 586 “new perspective” on Paul 420n. New Testament

Index of Subjects definition of 32, 656 Gospels in see Gospels letters in 290–2, 296–7, 300, 307, 315, 327, 374, 399 list of writings in 290–2, 298 and the Old Testament 291, 303–11 as the principal source of theology 288–303 see also Gospels; Scripture; Old Testament Nicaea, Council of 38, 426, 444, 504, 649, 656 Nicene Creed 38, 41, 273, 384, 415, 424–9, 436, 439–40, 446, 504, 507, 656 Niebuhr’s five types of relating faith and culture 525–33 NOMA see two-language theory non-denominational churches 46–7, 52 “nones,” the 53–4 nun 86, 631, 657 Old Catholic Church 44, 52 Old Testament gospel in 315–18 see also gospel and the Hebrew Bible 33, 69, 306–7, 647, 657 as the second main source of theology 342, 303–12 ontological argument 169–72, 194–5, 204– 5, 605 ontology see metaphysics order in church polity 34–5, 45, 451–2 as a signal of transcendence 223 in the universe 67, 147–8, 173–82, 557–66, 570–1, 574–6 see also creation; God, as Creator; natural knowledge of God; philosophical theology orthodox/orthodoxy as a confessional claim 313 as a criterion of canonicity 296–7, 301 definition of 40, 75 and heresy 40, 75, 129, 294 Protestant 85–6, 151, 153, 256, 325, 521 scholastic Catholic 72, 78–82, 145, 169n., 469, 539, 663 see also Eastern Orthodox Church; heresy; scholasticism

panentheism 191, 415, 589, 657 pantheism 191, 415, 444, 657 papacy see Roman Catholic Church, teaching office in parenesis see apostles, exhortation by pastor ix, 19, 34–5, 42, 452, 480, 486, 510, 654, 658 patriarchs in the early church 37, 291, 658 in the Old Testament 247, 305, 354, 370, 658 Pentecost, Day of 48, 406–7, 440–2, 445, 544, 658, 666 Pentecostal churches 48, 52, 390n., 452, 658 phenomenology 125, 225–30, 274, 485, 535, 569–70, 627, 658 philosophical theology 64–8, 89, 167–87, 220, 229–32, 477–88, 496–8, 538–40, 658–9 philosophy and theology 538–40 see also philosophical theology Pietism 88–9, 92, 528n. Platonism 64–7, 70, 73–4, 77–8, 92, 121, 142, 148–9, 168, 232, 248, 538 pneumatology see Holy Spirit, the polemics 131, 310 pope see Roman Catholic Church, teaching office in post-liberal theology 102n., 104–8, 280–3 postmodernism 102n., 104, 123n., 208, 223, 340n., 659 practical theology 479–84, 486–9, 494–6, 499, 508–15, 536, 555, 567, 659–60 praxis xiv, 88, 101–2, 117, 264, 496, 508– 9, 660 prayer 6, 8, 12, 75–8, 83–4, 87, 143n., 272–3, 327, 350, 354–5, 384, 386–7, 399, 416, 580, 652 predestination 45, 47, 244 presbyter (elder) 35, 45, 451–2, 660 Presbyterian Church 45–6, 52, 313n. priests 19, 33, 34n., 36, 41, 76, 467, 486, 636, 653–4, 660 priesthood of all believers 45 principles of historical criticism see historical criticism process theology 192, 218n., 229–31, 585, 593, 596, 660

731

732

Index of Subjects proclamation 117, 124, 244, 250–2, 254, 260– 2, 272, 288, 342–4, 370, 380–3, 388, 431, 448, 454–5 prolegomena see fundamental theology prophets 34, 126, 140, 247–50, 192–3, 257, 259–61, 263, 265n., 271, 286, 302–6, 312, 325–9, 336, 467–8, 378, 384–6, 394, 419–21, 439, 452, 660 see also apostles; special revelation, models of; Scripture, inspiration of Protestants/Protestantism conservative 19, 46n., 107, 159, 256, 281–2, 318, 342, 548, 560, 643 denominations 46n., 47, 53, 560, 643 differences with Catholicism 42–6 see also tradition, Christian evangelicalism 5n., 46n., 47, 643 liberal tradition of 47n., 91–4, 98, 157, 497, 628 non-denominational 46–7, 52, 656 population of 51–3 Reformation 42–3, 82–6, 251, 324, 469, 496–7, 539, 620, 634, 661 “Q” (“Quelle”) 372, 412, 630, 660 rationalism 9, 89, 155, 171–3, 178, 194–6, 210, 335, 482, 484, 528n., 628 reconciliation 84, 366, 370, 403–4, 431, 543, 661–2 see also gospel; justification; salvation Reformed Church 43–8, 52, 84–5, 151–2, 252, 301–2, 309n., 325, 530–1, 661 regula fidei see rule of faith religions comparisons between 9–13, 50–1, 535, 538 criticism of 193–205 see also atheism; Enlightenment, the definitions of 8–11, 661 and global problems 18–20, 118, 128, 535, 567, 586, 589 history of 193–4, 210, 314, 377–8, 484–5, 500, 535 see also religious studies persistence of 68, 218–32, 472 and truth 20–1, 501 uniquely particular 156–7 in universities 18–23

Western 13, 175, 179–80 religious experience 8–12, 21, 156–7, 163, 180, 220–30, 473, 536, 569–70 as mere cultural expression 227 and Protestant evangelicalism 47–8, 89 as a source of theology 89–91, 99–100, 128, 155–63 religious practices 11–13, 18, 21, 472, 537 see also meditation; prayer; ritual; worship religious studies 10–13, 25–6, 118–19, 132, 471–6 normative questions in 20–1, 92, 501 phenomenological approaches in see phenomenology and theology 25–6, 533–8 repentance 56, 110, 244, 245n., 301, 316, 327, 382, 384–5, 449–50, 661 resurrection see Christ, death and resurrection of revealed theology see revelation, as divine selfgiving; special revelation revelation and art 8–9, 185, 222–3, 540–1, 543– 4, 552–3 of the church see church as divine self-giving 94–5, 110, 123–4, 158, 238, 248–50, 255, 265–6, 422, 439–40, 647, 652 general see natural knowledge of God of human beings 83–4, 110, 116, 123–6, 417–21, 547, 554, 565 special see special revelation as the starting point of theology 72, 81, 94, 123–6, 158 of the world see creation revisionist theology 102–4, 109, 279–80, 662 ritual 9–12, 40, 207, 227, 349, 436, 447, 509, 511 Rome 35–7, 41–3, 290–1, 297, 347, 374, 451n., 662 Roman Catholic Church and the biblical canon 292, 301, 309, 328 and Eastern Orthodoxy 39, 41–3, 51, 328, 434, 436, 440n., 448–50 and the Reformation 41–4, 150, 265n. and the sex-abuse crisis 15

Index of Subjects statistics of 44, 51, 53 teaching office in ix, 76n., 329, 347–8, 451n., 653, 662 and Western Christianity 35–7, 40–5, 78, 323, 436, 662 rule of faith (regula fidei) 297, 302–3, 430–1, 653, 662 sacraments 42–5, 48, 76, 244, 265, 406–7, 441, 448–52, 511, 662 see also Baptism; Lord’s Supper sacred Scripture see Scripture salvation 124, 144–5, 248–52, 423–4, 430–6 salvation history 92, 108, 257–9, 285n., 364– 72, 381, 443–5, 494, 647 schism 41–2, 75 Schleiermacher’s three sub-disciplines 479– 84, 489–90 scholasticism 78–82, 236–7, 469, 539, 605, 608, 663 science(s) and argument for design 176–81, 194, 557–8, 570–7 cognitive 162, 182, 228–9, 237, 569–70 human 21–2, 90, 118, 472n., 554, 566– 70, 592 limits of the 4–6, 89, 226–7, 266–71, 522–3, 539, 578, natural 94–5, 108, 121–2, 129–30, 152, 198, 213, 238, 281, 391, 473n., 554–96, 598–600 see also creation scientific creationism see creationism scientism 564, 572, 582–3 Scripture attributes of 302–3, 346–7 authority of 321–9, 332–42, 496–7 and bishops see bishops canon of 36, 54–5, 69, 289–304, 307–9 Christ as the center of 128, 300–1, 285, 315–18, 364–72, 557 and church confessions 312–14 criticism of see historical criticism errors in 329–32 formation of 36, 54–5, 69, 289–304, 307–9 genres in 126, 255, 285, 314, 337–8, 350–2, 366, 376–7

inerrancy of 46n., 287, 323n., 326–9, 637, 643, 645, 650 inspiration of 283–6, 326–8 interpretation of see hermeneutics literal sense of see sensus literalis as a literary classic 337–9 perfection of see Scripture, sufficiency of perspicuity of 302–3, 342–3 sufficiency of 302, 346 and tradition see tradition, Christian transitory character of 261, 283–4, 352 see also New Testament; Old Testament “Scripture interprets Scripture” 303, 342–3 Second Commandment 69, 417 “second naïveté” 23 Second Vatican Council 31, 42, 44, 105, 108, 213, 262, 496 secularization see universities, secularization of self-criticism 22, 56, 96n., 118–19, 121–3, 282, 335, 468, 499, 502, 525 self-revelation of God see revelation, as divine self-giving; special revelation sensus literalis 350 Septuagint 68–70, 79, 288, 291–2, 303, 444 see also Old Testament seven cardinal (“deadly”) sins 421 seven liberal arts see liberal arts signals of transcendence 223–5 “simul justus et peccator” 317 sin see human beings, as sinners slavery of ancient Israel 69–70, 144, 247, 305 and Christianity 16, 35, 203, 259, 282, 331, 352–3, 441 of human will 45, 308, 423n., 434, 549 see also human beings, as sinners Society of Friends 48, 52, 263, 613 sola scriptura see Scripture, sufficiency of Son of God see Christ soteriology see salvation special revelation and the apostles 123–6, 255, 269, 278–9, 285, 309–10, 335, 489 centers on Christ 265 Dulles’ models of understanding of 255–66 in history see salvation history

733

734

Index of Subjects relation to general revelation 246–7 as salvific 151–2, 246–7 subjectivism 87, 104, 183n., 184–5, 200–1, 228, 339–42, 476, 482–4 suffering 7, 17–18, 205–8, 214–16, 227, 234, 665 Synoptic Gospels see Gospels, Synoptic systematic theology see doctrinal theology teleological argument see argument from design Ten Commandments 284–5, 419, 546, 651, 664 see also First Commandment; law; Second Commandment theism/theist classical 167, 218n., 229–31 criticism of atheism and agnosticism by 210–32 definition of 12 “warrants” for 182–3, 565n. see also atheism; God; monotheism; natural knowledge of God; philosophical theology theistic evolution 561, 564, 582n., 586, 605, 665 theodicy 205–9, 215–16, 234–5, 576n., 665 theologia archetypos/ektypos 142 theologian of the cross/of glory 83, 268, 434–9, 498, 545n., 547–8, 604, 665 theological anthropology see human being theological encyclopedia viii-ix, 474–7, 645, 666 theological ethics 512–15 theology academic see academic theology and commitment 123, 380, 484 criticism of the church by 455, 482, 487–8 divisions of 477–90 earliest form of Christian 32 as first philosophy 66–7 fourfold goal of 116, 127 fundamental see fundamental theology historical see historical theology informal ways into 4–9, 11–18 as introspective 77–8, 83–4 Jewish 18n., 68–72, 112–14, 474

mystical 72n., 77, 80–1, 86–7, 141–3, 230 philosophical see philosophical theology political 102–4, 477, 509, 622, 639 and the present situation 99, 128, 431, 477, 494–5, 510–12 practical orientation of see practical theology principal norm of see gospel principal source of see New Testament; hermeneutics as “queen of the sciences” 478, 520–1, 604 as reflection on divine revelation 123–6 as reflection on the Logos 72–4 as reflection on the sacred 225–7 as reflection on religious symbols 225–6 revealed see revelation and science see science as the “science of God” 2, 72, 81, 109, 520 second main source of see Old Testament; hermeneutics and social location 585 subordinate sources of 311–14 systematic see doctrinal theology; philosophical theology at the undergraduate level x, 486–9, 494–515 wheel of 495 theophany 247–8, 259 traditions 30, 312–14 Trent, Council of 43, 292, 300–1, 662 Trinity as above reason 81–2, 149, 154 as an article of faith 174, 443–6 see also Apostles’ Creed; Chalcedon, Council of; creed; Nicaea, Council of; Nicene Creed as divine identity 443–6 and the filioque clause 439n., 446n., 640, 644 truth coherence theory of 79, 105–6, 280–1 correspondence theory of 99–100, 103–4, 213, 557, 586 “two books” nature and Scripture 151–3, 557, 573n., 667 see also natural knowledge of God; Scripture two-languages theory 583–4, 667

Index of Subjects ultimate concern 1, 8–10, 12, 160–2, 229, 245, 472 uncaused Cause see God United States, the 1n., 2, 7–8, 15–17, 21–2, 46–8, 51–3, 61, 184n., 527 Uniting Churches 46 universe see creation; order, in the universe universities “captive to the mind of Christ” 531 church authoritarianism in 469 higher faculties in 467–8, 471, 648, 653, 664 humanities in see the arts; humanities lower faculties in 468, 648, 653 medieval 467–9, 521–2 religious phenomena in 20–1, 471–2 secularization of 117, 469–72, 533 theology in see academic theology University of Berlin 90, 469, 471, 628 as vocational centers 470 unmoved Mover see God Vatican councils see First Vatican Council; Second Vatican Council

verbal inspiration see Scripture, inspiration of vocation 83, 122n., 470, 510–11, 543, 553 wager of Pascal 186 Westminster Confession 43, 152n. wisdom as an aim of theology 72–3, 85, 118–23, 131–2, 525, 534, 537–8 as knowledge of God and ourselves 84, 468–70, 557 sacred 249, 263, 269, 355 and science 521–5, 554, 557 women 19, 34–5, 41, 45, 49, 80–1, 102–3, 111, 259, 282, 286, 331, 345, 352–3, 506 see also feminist theology word of God 86, 94–7, 157–8, 247–52, 259– 62, 283–7, 316, 325–9, 497–502 see also gospel; hermeneutics; Logos; Scripture worship 2, 12–13, 38–42, 77, 85, 147, 154, 161, 272–3, 404–6, 441, 507–11, 518 see also idolatry; liturgy; prayer; proclamation; sacraments

735

736