Why I Am Not An Evangelical (Book Review)

A review of Keith C. Sewell, The Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Roots, Consequences, and Resolutions (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016).

by Ryan McIlhenny

When asked why he was not a Christian, the impenetrably erudite Bertrand Russell said it was because Christianity lacked the evidence needed for him to give his personal assent. Russell clearly demonstrated his hostility to the knowledge of God as described in Romans 1. William Connolly’s argument in Why I am not a Secularist centres on the fact that secularism had itself become a kind of intolerant religion, of which Connolly, an atheist, wanted no part. Obviously, he missed the opportunity to consider the religion-in-all-of-life thesis in the Kuyperian tradition. My answer to the question as to why I’m not an evangelical—yes, I’ve been asked—includes not only the very narrow image of Christianity constructed by Evangelicalism but also what seems to be the insurmountable problems inherent to it that go beyond doctrine. Those who feel somewhat uncomfortable with the mystique of Evangelicalism, its less-than complete picture of the richness of biblical Christianity, may find partial relief in Keith Sewell’s The Crisis of Evangelical Christianity, a book that traces the historical origins and reductionist tendencies of Evangelicalism. Sewell retired as professor of history at Dordt College in 2012.

The issue is not so much the word evangel (or evangelist), referring simply to the good news of the gospel of Christ and those who carry forth that message. The problem comes when an otherwise adequate descriptor is Jekyll-and-Hijacked into a corrupted “ism” and whether its basic content can be redeemed at all. Most “isms” are somewhat elusive, defined by a constellation of emphases. David Bebbington’s “quadrilateral of priorities”—biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism, and activism—remains the most helpful and definitive source for defining Evangelicalism. Much of Sewell’s study focuses on the biblicist aspect of Bebbington’s priorities, how different uses of the Bible came to shape the long history of Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism came into being around the time of the Protestant Reformation. Those who were labeled Protestant, including the followers of Martin Luther, referred to as Evangeliche, sought to recover the authority of the one who alone made sinners right before a holy God. This required a turning away from the dictates of Rome in order to return to the authority of scripture, the only infallible source by which true faith is found.

When the accoutrements of Rome had been stripped away, believers found themselves alone with God’s word. Protestants developed three approaches to the Bible’s teachings—the corrective, the regulative, and the directive. Adherents of the corrective type proposed that any religious activity was permissible, Sewell writes, “unless it was expressly contrary to biblical teaching and example” (29). The “regulative” approach, best represented by Ulrich Zwingli, held that “whatever had no explicit warrant in Scripture had no authorized place in the doctrine and life of the church” (30). The directive perspective, inspired by the work of John Calvin, sought “to understand each passage in scripture in terms of scriptural principle distilled from the whole span of the canonical writings” (35). The “great strength of the directional outlook,” which Sewell unabashedly identifies with, “is that it exemplifies an understanding of biblical authority that makes possible the application of general biblical principles in circumstances unanticipated by the biblical writers” (36). The Bible is a compilation of various ways in which God communicates the story of salvation to his people; it is an instrument used by the Holy Spirit to shape the heart of those who come to believe, which then directs the formulations of theology proper.

An important aspect of Evangelicalism slightly muted in Sewell’s study is the place of the individual’s encounter with scripture—and hence God. Sewell notes that Bebbington’s doctrinal emphases can be boiled down even further to a subject-object relationship: the emotional experience of the believer (subject) in his or her encounter with God’s word (object). The strand of Protestantism influenced by German pietism, Wesleyan perfectionism, and the “new methods” of Finneyite revivalism, further developed the Evangelical ethos, especially in the way that it eventually drove a wedge between the head and the heart. By the nineteenth century, the scales tipped in favour of the latter over the former. The true knowledge of God that came through an intensely independent reading of scripture moved these emerging Evangelicals toward a more constricting chapter-and-verse biblicism where emotionally-charged “private interpretations” became the authority that confirmed true conversion. To say it differently, the Bible was the source of true religion, but that which confirmed true faith was the sincerity of the heart. Evangelicalism seemed to codify (and copyright) what it meant to have a true conversion experience. The consequence of the individual’s unmediated interpretation of God’s word has been to force scripture to say something that it does not, failing to understand scripture on its own terms. And, ironically, for “all the ‘battle for the Bible’ rhetoric,” Sewell says, “large portions of evangelical rank and file are surprisingly ignorant of [the Bible’s] actual content” (53).

On this note, Sewell’s study could have been aided by a brief discussion on the doctrine of divine revelation. God reveals his specific plan of salvation to the people he has called out of the world. This is known as “special” or “particular” revelation. At the same time, God reveals himself generally in all of creation to all of humanity. Evangelicals often fail to see the relationship between these two modes of communication, neglecting what could be a richer understanding of God and his magnificent work of redemption. In particular, they fail to see what is common to both—namely, God’s revelation of himself. The pious Evangelical who willfully restricts the knowledge of God to personal salvation not only relegates or devalues God’s self-revelation in creation but also neglects creation itself, minimizing the good that remains in creation and losing sight of the promise of cosmic redemption and the place that God has for believers—as God wills through them—in their role as agents of reconciliation. The reduction of biblical Christianity to personal salvation, ignoring the mysteries in creation to be uncovered, tends toward a kind of intellectual separatism. The Evangelical mind has rarely been able to sustain a robust intellectual response to the challenges of modern thought, especially, as Sewell points out, higher criticism or naturalistic evolution. Not even the more intellectually engaged Neo-Evangelical has been able to do this.

Sewell points out that the directional approach to the Bible allows for an integral understand of the role of the gospel in all of life and challenges dualistic thinking in which an aspect of the created order either stands on an equal level to God or above him. It challenges assumptions not guided by a radically biblical motive. Evangelicals seem to engage studies outside of scripture strictly for apologetic purposes, not to explore the depths of the knowledge of God, failing thereby to understand creation in its proper place. Creation can never be severed from the Creator. The meaning that humans derive as they interact with creation is relationally dependent on the Creator. The biologist, for instance, who looks at the biotic aspect life, cannot reduce the entirety of the cosmos to that single way of being, since all the ways of being that make up the cosmos are creationally interdependent and ultimately dependent on a transcendent Creator. Even the discipline of theology, Sewell writes, as part of creational cultivation—i.e., doctrinal formations made by biblical scholars—is done in submission to the Creator.

While I would agree with Sewell’s assessment, I think he needs to go a bit further. For instance, if, as Sewell claims, the knowledge of scripture is lacking, wouldn’t an understanding of the doctrine of salvation be equally deficient? Would the average Evangelical be able to articulate what is meant by justification by faith alone? What is a reduction, if one doesn’t know much about the thing being reduced? It seems that Evangelicalism’s focus is not so much on the doctrinal tenets of true faith, but on the sincerity of an emotional experience, which determines the meaning of scripture. Furthermore, I am a bit unclear as to whether Sewell’s alternatives—including reforming corporate worship, biblical scholarship, and the Christian’s role in public life—to the crisis of Evangelicalism are offered to save it or send it to the theological dustbin. In other words, would it continue as Evangelicalism if Sewell’s more consistently Calvinistic alternative were to be employed? An answer to this question would require examining Evangelicalism from a different angle.

Sewell is right to say that Bebbington has certainly provided a very helpful definition for understanding Evangelicalism. But I would add that it does not include the corresponding social and cultural features—individualism, separatism, and consumerism—that have likewise contributed to both the mood and identity of Evangelicalism. These tenets have been largely overlooked by Christian intellectuals. What gives life to the biblicism, activism, and conversionism, in particular (not so much the crucicentrism, other than the emotive nature of it), is the hyper-individualism or hyper-democratization shaped by the consumerism of the modern world. This is not to say that tools of consumerism (e.g., methods of communication, from Gutenberg’s printing press to Facebook and Twitter) should be abandoned. Martin Luther’s success came in large part because of his use of the newly invented printing press, although not in a market context. The great revivalist George Whitefield utilized the innovations in print culture to reach a wider audience at a time when the modern economy was in its infancy. Radio preachers and later televangelists used more modern forms of communication for similar ends. These modes of communication have been the foundational infrastructure of a commercial-based society. Used appropriately, such technologies, regardless of their role in creating an integrated economy, can be very helpful. Thus I argue that the development of Evangelicalism has been intertwined with the development of modern capitalism.

Yet by neglecting the history of capitalism—consumer capitalism—in the overall history of Evangelicalism, scholars (including Sewell) miss another important crisis: the danger of prioritizing the tastes of consumers over the truths of the gospel. Fickle individualism is a common element in both consumerism and Evangelicalism. And the question is what feeds the capriciousness, the consumerism or the doctrinal emphases, the latter of which have no connections with ecclesiastical authority? A consumer culture is interested in what sells. It is not bound to the preservation of truth. Hipster Neo-Evangelicalism, the latest in an attempt to be culturally relevant, does not and will not move the church closer to unity since it is beholden to the rapid changes endemic to consumer capitalism. Because it is directed not by individual pietism (of whatever kind) but by individual taste, Evangelicalism will also resist consensus on the Bible’s teachings.

The question, then, is whether a theological reform can be accomplished without addressing these largely neglected social and cultural features. Would it still be Evangelicalism? But consider a different question: how devastating would it be to abandon the term all together? Perhaps it would encourage believers to remember the only name to which they are confessionally bound:

Why are you called a Christian?
Because I am a member of Christ by faith and thus share in his anointing, so that I may as prophet confess his name, as priest present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him, and as king fight with a free and good conscience against sin and the devil in this life, and hereafter reign with him eternally over all creatures.
Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 12 (Q/A: 32)

Ryan C. McIlhenny, PhD (University of California, Irvine) is associate professor of liberal arts at Geneva College (Shanghai) and the author of Reforming the Liberal Arts (Beaver Falls, PA: Falls City Press, 2017).

Science and Secularization

(Harvard UP, 2007)

Science and Secularization are two words often uttered in the same breath with the assumption that science is responsible for secularization. This misunderstanding had been exposed some time ago by historians of science such as John Hedley Brooke [“Science and Secularization,” in: The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 2010, pp. 103-120]. In 2007, Charles Taylor gave us a book-length evaluation of this assumption from a social and broad cultural perspective. His conclusion: secularization is the result of many developments which converged on giving people the freedom to accept or reject the Christian faith. When people turn away from God this shows in everything they do, including science.

If science has anything to do with secularization, it is that science has been and continues to be used illegitimately as a stick to beat what some consider the dead horse of religion. Here is a recent review of Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age by David Brooks from the New York Times.

Another Look at C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis died half a century ago, in the fall of 1963. To mark this anniversary, British theologian Alister McGrath has left us a new biography of his famous compatriot.* It is of course not the first Lewis biography. Several had appeared earlier, most of them written by people who had known Lewis personally. McGrath does not belong to that generation. But if this is a drawback, it is, as he points out, also an advantage. Not only can he draw on a much larger corpus of Lewis studies than the earlier biographers, he has also available to him the collected letters of Lewis – some 3500 pages of text – which were published only recently. Moreover, his position enables him to give an account of Lewis’s continuing influence today.

The description of that influence is among the elements that gives this new biography an added value and will be the topic of the present review. On a future occasion I hope to turn also to McGrath’s treatment of Lewis’s actual “message,” and therefore of his theological and philosophical views as expressed in his apologetic books, his fiction, and often in his scholarly work. The biography sheds light on these aspects of Lewis’s work as well. Indeed, McGrath is well-qualified for the work he has undertaken. A professor of theology, ministry, and education at King’s College in London and author of several works on apologetics, theology, and related subjects, he shares several of Lewis’s interests. There are, he tells his readers, additional ties that connect him with Lewis: both grew up in Ireland, both studied and taught at Oxford, both were atheists at a certain period in their lives, and upon their conversion both rejoined the Anglican Church in which they had been baptized.

Eccentric genius

McGrath writes that his intention is not to praise or condemn Lewis but to help us understand him. This implies a consideration of both his strong and his weak points. In connection with the latter we get additional information on such matters as Lewis’s relation with his father, with Mrs. Moore, and his often condescending attitude toward women. Although the author does not hesitate to be critical, he also attempts to achieve a balance by looking at things from different angles, and on the whole his treatment is generous. Lewis is shown to have been “eccentric” not first of all because of deficiencies in his character or personal relationships, but because of what he considered his calling as a Christian academic. Contrary to accepted usage, he expressed his Christian convictions in his scholarly work and, what was worse, did not hesitate to write popular works of Christian fiction and of apologetics. According to most of his Oxford colleagues, none of this ought to be done by a reputable academic, and certainly not by an Oxford don. Although a distinguished literary scholar and critic, Lewis was considered an “outsider,” and he was more than once passed over when an Oxford professorship in English literature became available. When he finally did receive a professorship it was given not by Oxford, but by Cambridge, which in 1954 established for him a chair in Medieval and Renaissance English literature. Lewis worked there until shortly before his death on November 22, 1963 – one week before his 65th birthday.

War-time popularity

Although he gives attention to the scholarly contributions, McGrath focuses especially on Lewis’s work as an apologist and a writer of fiction. Some of these works appeared already in the 1930s, namely The Pilgrim’s Regress (1933) and the first volume of the space trilogy, Out of the Silent Planet (1938). It was his work as a “war-time apologist,” however, that made Lewis widely known as a Christian writer. First among these books was The Problem of Pain (1940), soon followed by the even more popular Screwtape Letters (1942) and by The Abolition of Man (1943).

Lewis became also widely known through the BBC Broadcast Talks which he gave, at the request of the BBC, during the early years of the war. These talks were published between 1942 and 1944 in three separate booklets. A one-volume edited version appeared in 1952 under the title Mere Christianity, which, McGrath tells us, is now often cited as the most influential religious work of the twentieth century. It was not just war-torn England that appreciated Lewis’s Christian writings, they were also well received in North America. His popularity continued in the next decade, not least because of such works as the Narnia Chronicles (1950-1956) and Mere Christianity. Although it was diminishing, the religious interest that had been awakened during the war and had contributed to Lewis’s popularity continued during much of the 1950s.

Ebb and flow

That religious interest declined in the following decade, and Lewis’s popularity also began to dwindle in that period. Although it turned out to be only a temporary setback, it was real. Lewis himself seems to have anticipated the loss of his popularity: towards the end of his life he told his secretary that within a few years after his death his name would be forgotten. McGrath suggests various reasons for the decline. For one thing, and perhaps most importantly, the 1960s was the decade of rapid secularization, of the “death of God” movement, and of a widespread conviction that religion was disappearing from the face of the earth. Apologetic works seemed to be losing their relevance. Meanwhile the popularity of Tolkien’s epic fantasy The Lord of the Rings began to overshadow Lewis’s imaginative works. Tolkien’s epic seemed to speak to the problems of the 1960s and ’70s, such as the Cold War and the danger of a nuclear holocaust. All in all, Lewis appeared as a man of the past whose work might have some historical interest but was no longer considered relevant.

The surprising thing is not that this dip occurred, but that it did not last, and that Lewis is even more widely read today than he was during his life time. McGrath suggests various reasons for this. Lewis had always been more influential in America than in England, and an important role in the resurgence was played by changes in the American evangelical world. Lewis’s earlier influence had been most pronounced among non-evangelical Christians in America. Most evangelicals, still under the influence of fundamentalism, had distrusted him for his lifestyle (especially his smoking and beer-drinking), for aspects of his theology, and for his openness to the world of art, literature, and culture in general. Mid-century, however, saw the rise in America of the “new evangelicalism” which questioned the isolationism and the cultural disengagement of the fundamentalist past and asked for more contact with and more concern for the modern world and modern society. Among the leaders were men like Harold Ockenga, who served several years a president of Fuller Theological Seminary, Carl F.H. Henry, the first editor of Christianity Today, apologist Francis Schaeffer, and evangelist Billy Graham. Fuller Seminary, established in 1947, and Christianity Today, which first appeared in 1956, played a central role in the movement. The new evangelicals, McGrath writes, sought out a number of British writers to help them show the intellectual respectability of Christianity. They first turned especially to John Stott, but by the mid-seventies C.S. Lewis had been rediscovered and was increasingly cited in Christianity Today.

A paradigm shift

There are other reasons. Among them, McGrath suggests, may well be the change in the general worldview during the second half of the century – the shift from modernism to postmodernism. For one thing, the rise of postmodernism was accompanied by a renewed interest in religion and spirituality. As during the war years, Lewis’s work again met this felt need. Even the rise of the new evangelicalism can perhaps be explained, at least in part, with reference to this shift.

Alister McGrath

There was also a new interest in non-intellectual aspects of the Christian faith. An important element in Lewis’s come-back, McGrath believes, was that he showed how literature, and especially imaginative literature, could serve the faith. Though his own conversion had, as he himself put it, been essentially “intellectual” and “philosophical,” and though he continued to stress the intellectual aspect, Lewis more and more realized that belief was also a matter of the heart and the emotions. This he made clear in imaginative works like the space trilogy and the Chronicles of Narnia. “Those who initially valued Lewis for his rational defence of the Christian faith,” McGrath writes, “now found themselves appreciating his appeal to the imagination and emotions. Lewis’s multilayered conception of Christianity enabled evangelicals to realise that they could enrich their faith without diluting it, and engage secular culture in ways other than through reasoned argument.”

Yet another element, McGrath believes, was what he calls “the erosion of denominationalism” in the second half of the century. This was evident not only among evangelicals, he writes, but since the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s also among Roman Catholics. Lewis spoke to this trend as well. Himself a loyal Anglican, he refused to pronounce on denominational issues and divisions. His most influential apologetic work was Mere Christianity, and as he wrote in the Preface to that book, he believed that the best service he could render to his unbelieving neighbours was not to introduce them to the divisions in Christianity but “to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.” This did not mean that he denied the importance of creeds or “denominations,” only that he was not going to tell the unbelievers he addressed which church they should join. That decision was important – Lewis stressed that for believers church membership was essential – but it was to be made later, after one had become a Christian. For the time being, then, Lewis’s stress was on “mere” Christianity. In a time of declining denominationalism this may well have added to his growing appeal. Evidence of that appeal, McGrath tells us, is that since the early 1990s Lewis’s books have been religious best-sellers.

These, then, are among the factors which, McGrath shows, have contributed to Lewis’s popularity and influence today. Of course, of overriding importance was and is the actual message he conveyed in his writings. As mentioned, some day I hope to return to McGrath’s biography to see what it tells us about that aspect of Lewis’s work.

---

*Alister McGrath, C.S. Lewis – A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet, Tyndale House Publishers, 2013.

The Philosophical Foundations of Bavinck and Dooyeweerd

Herman Dooyeweerd (1894–1977) was a Dutch philosopher in the neo-Calvinist tradition. He acquired international fame as one of the founders of a new school of Christian philosophy. Ed Echeverria reviewed two books, one a biography of the theologian Herman Bavinck by Ron Gleason and one a sympathetic-critical study of Dooyeweerd’s Christian philosophy of law, politics and society by Jonathan Chaplin. Chaplin’s book contains the clearest introduction to the thought of Dooyeweerd and Echeverria’s essay improves on that by offering the shortest introduction to Dooyeweerd and by comparing his thought to that of Bavinck.

Here is a link to Echeverria’s review essay in Journal of Markets & Morality v. 14, n. 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 463–483.

For those interested, subscription information to this journal is provided here.

A subscription is necessary to access the two most recent issues online (there is an affordably priced electronic-only option for individuals), but the rest of the journal’s issues are freely available in their online archive.

Evolution and the Bible

In connection with my recent post “Church and Modern Science,” Pastor Rob Schouten complained (in a public discussion on Facebook) that Reformed Academic “gives no evidence of grappling with the extraordinary problems of the theory of evolution,” and expressed the wish that we would “spend some time analyzing the manifest weaknesses” of that theory. This is a fair request, and in what follows I will attempt to respond to it.

I would like to begin by slightly reformulating the question. Rev. Schouten, if I understand him correctly, asks us especially to be diligent in exposing scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theories. Generally, however, we (and no doubt Rev. Schouten himself) look for these and bring them to the fore because of the religious

difficulties we as Bible-believing Christians have with evolution. Pinpointing scientific weaknesses will not, I am convinced, remove all these difficulties. Therefore, although not ignoring the existence of scientific problems, I will focus on the religious ones. The urgency of the topic was brought home to me once more by a recent publication by Reformed theologian C. John Collins (professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis), which he titled Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were And Why You Should Care (Crossway, 2011).

In this blog posting I will follow that book quite closely.

Scientific weaknesses: are they conclusive?

But first a few remarks on possible scientific weaknesses of the theory of evolution. I can be brief here because, as it happens, I have earlier dealt with this issue. I did so in an essay titled “Teaching Evolution at Our Schools – Why and How,” which was posted on this blog on 30 October 2009, and can be found under my name under “Collected Papers.” Therein I listed a number of questions that must be considered in connection with evolutionary theories (see especially section 5, “How we should teach evolution (II),” and section 6, “Let’s keep in mind the nature of science”).

Since the information is available on the blog, I will not repeat my arguments, but I do want to point out, as I did in the paper, that the questions I raised are among the reasons why I personally have difficulties accepting the naturalistic, macro-evolutionary picture of development “from molecules to man.” (Other reasons are of a religious nature.) At the same time I made clear in my paper that the scientific evidence for evolution is very strong and that in all honesty we should admit this. In this connection I referred to the very pointed admission of young-earth biochemist Todd Charles Wood (who rejects evolution not on scientific but on religious grounds) that denying the very significant scientific evidence simply won’t do.

I realize that most of his fellow young-earth creationists will disagree with Wood’s estimate of the theory’s strength and will refer to the work of young-earth scientists, and perhaps even to that of “creation science.” I understand their concern. It points to the route I myself once followed. My intensive reading of both young-earth and old-earth creationists as well as that of evolutionary scientists, Christians and non-Christians (and also my recognition of the practical applications of scientific theories), convinced me that modern science, including evolutionary science, must be taken far more seriously than often happens in our circles, and that our habit of denying the evidence and replacing it with pseudo-scientific alternatives is not only wrong but also dangerous. The reasons I have given in previous posts. They include the evidence provided not just by biology but by the majority of the modern sciences, the urgent need to interact with our culture, the fact that our attitude can form a serious stumbling block for our own people, not least for ill-prepared students among us, and that it is bound to cause problems in our evangelistic efforts. The last-mentioned factor, I have suggested, is probably among the reasons why a number of outstanding orthodox theologians have publicly accepted one version or another of evolutionary creationism.

Denying the historicity of Adam and Eve

Although other religious difficulties can be mentioned, the most serious challenge Christians have to deal with are scientific findings that are claimed by scientists to make it impossible any longer to believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve (and all that this implies for our understanding of Scripture). The denial of their historicity is not a novel development. Originally it was based on the study of fossils, which appeared to give evidence of the existence of pre-Adamites and of a much earlier appearance of the human species than the biblical record seems to allow. More recently, of course, the position has been greatly strengthened by the striking advances in modern genomics.

These scientific findings, and especially the ones in genomics, have convinced even many Christians that belief in the existence of Adam and Eve can no longer be defended. Among them is well-known geneticist Francis S. Collins, one-time leader of the Human Genome Project, author of the best-selling autobiography The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006), and one of the founders of the blog BioLogos. The idea is being propagated even in the Reformed camp. There was much consternation a few years ago when two Calvin College theologians, at a meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, professed their adherence to the view held by Francis Collins. At that same meeting C. John Collins presented a paper, later published under the title “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters,” wherein he outlined “the other side” of the issue. (For the relevant papers see Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, v. 62, n. 3, September 2010.) Collins’ newly published book is an extension of the paper he gave at the ASA meeting. (Note: In the present blog posting, “Collins” refers to C. John Collins, not to Francis Collins.)

Biblical evidence

Dr. C. John Collins
Professor of Old Testament
Covenant Seminary

How does Collins deal with the challenge? He begins (in chapter 2) by describing the “shape of the biblical story,” noting that the Bible consists not of unconnected episodes dealing with topics like morality, spiritual guidance, theology, devotion, and so on (although these matters are indeed being taught), but that it takes the form of a coherent, overarching, worldview-shaping narrative. Genesis 1 forms the beginning of that redemptive-historical narrative and sets the stage for all that is to follow: Eden, the fall, the need for redemption, Christ’s position as the “second Adam,” his sacrifice, resurrection and ascension, the judgment to come, and the ultimate restoration of all things. The historicity of this narrative, which assures us that our beliefs are not the stuff of dreams but are based on reality, is of utmost importance, and Collins makes a point of affirming it, giving special attention to the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. These chapters, he writes, are historical in the sense “that the author wanted his audience to believe that the events recorded really happened” (p. 34). This does not mean that Genesis 1 and following chapters are written according to modern historiographical standards, or in precise chronological order, or in complete detail. Nor does it mean that no figurative language has been used. It does mean that Genesis 1 speaks of events that actually happened.

The historicity of the first chapters of the Bible implies the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first humans. Although, as we will see, Collins is willing to go quite a distance in considering the conclusions of modern science, the historicity of Adam and Eve (or at least of “an” Adam and Eve) is for him nonnegotiable. The rest of the Bible requires it. As he points out, their actual existence as the ancestors of all humans – the fact that they were at the “headwaters” of human history – also accounts for the unity of the human race. The same historicity shows that the presence of sin in our world was not a natural “given” (which in fact would mean that God should be held responsible for it), but that it was the result of the disobedience of the first human couple, a disobedience that affects all their descendants. Only by accepting the story of a good creation which was marred by human disobedience, Collins will argue at greater length in a later chapter, are we able not only to understand the rest of the Bible but also make sense of the world in which we live.

Before turning to the latter point, he gives (in chapter 3) biblical evidence for the historicity of the first humans, listing texts in both the Old and New Testament that refer, directly or indirectly, to creation and to the existence of Adam and Eve as humanity’s first parents through whom sin entered the world. Many of these references are familiar – especially those we find in the Gospels, the Pauline Letters, and Revelation – but it is good to be given what looks like a fairly inclusive list. It affirms what we already knew, namely that the historicity of Adam and Eve – and of the record of creation in its entirety – does inform the biblical message and that questioning it raises very serious problems.

Here a difficult issue must be raised: Does such questioning necessarily imply a denial of the Bible’s authority as such, and must it therefore be qualified as unbelief? The issue is difficult because there are Christians who, while questioning the historicity of Adam and Eve, yet appear to believe with all their heart in the reality of sin and the need for salvation in Christ. Among those who have struggled with this question is Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, who accepts a version of evolutionary creationism but, like Collins, insists on the historicity of Adam and Eve. He answers as follows: “When you refuse to take a Biblical author [like Paul] literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the Biblical authority.... That doesn’t mean you can’t have a strong, vital faith yourself, but I believe such a move can be bad for the church as a whole, and it certainly can lead to confusion on the part of laypeople.” Collins, more briefly, describes any such questioning as an alternative that is “less satisfactory, and possibly even disastrous” (p. 133).

Common human experience

In the introduction to his book Collins announced as one of his goals “to argue that the traditional position on Adam and Eve, or some variation of it, does the best job of accounting not only for the Biblical materials but also for our everyday experience as human beings....” (p. 13). And therefore, he added, possible difficulties we encounter may mean that we should try making some adjustments to the traditional view, rather than discarding it altogether. Showing the link between the biblical narrative and everyday human experience is the topic of Chapter 4, which I think contains some of the most helpful material in the book, especially by arguing that science does not necessarily have the last word in determining what is true and real.

Collins begins with the biblical teaching that God made humankind in his image. That image can be interpreted in three ways, namely as resemblance (humans resemble God in some ways, such as the possession of intelligence, the ability to communicate by means of language, a sense of morality, a sense of beauty, and so on), as representation (Adam and Eve were appointed God’s vice-regents and given dominion), and as relational (humans were made to live in community with God and with their fellows). Collins admits the validity of all three explanations but focuses on the resemblance aspect, pointing out that the specific characteristics and capacities associated with the divine image are unique to humans and also that they are universal. Unless they can be proven to be the result of natural selection alone – a possibility which Collins says even some evolutionists question – the image serves as an argument for both humankind’s special creation and for the unity of the human race, a unity that various scientists are questioning. (Collins does believe, I should add, that scientific evidence points to an early date for the creation of Adam and Eve – he suggests a date before 40,000 B.C. – p. 117).

For a scientific theory to be acceptable, Collins writes, it must account “for the whole range of evidence,” and therefore also for the whole range of human experience, including the deep-seated desires, fears, and intuitions that all humans, both Christians and non-Christians, share. For example, there is, and there always has been, also in ancient pagan societies, a craving for human community governed by love and justice, just as there has always been a yearning for God, for redemption, forgiveness, moral transformation, for immortality and a blessed afterlife. These human cravings and experiences point to a dissonance between life as we experience it and as we feel it should be, and they help explain the profound sense of loss which is felt by all humans, and to which poets throughout the ages have borne witness. The universality of these experiences and longings, Collins writes, was traditionally held as stemming from a common origin. Its only satisfactory explanation is found in the story of Genesis 1 to 3.

In short, Collins reminds us here that there are “non-scientific,” historical, experiential, and even common sense reasons to believe in the uniqueness of humanity, its special creation, its unity, and also in the biblical message of its fall. While reading the chapter I thought that reference could also be made to Art. 5 of the Belgic Confession, which states that we believe in the divine origin of the books of the Bible first and foremost “because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they contain the evidence of this in themselves; for even the blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled.” This type of argument is applicable when we are resisting other assaults upon the faith, such as the denial of God’s very existence. I was reminded of C.S. Lewis’s fine essay “On Obstinacy in Belief,” wherein he speaks of knowledge of God “by acquaintance”: God is willing to make himself known to his people, also through the experiences of their lives as believers, as “the increasingly knowable Lord” (emphasis added).

Scientific aspects

Finally, in chapter 5, Collins gives some attention to the relevant science. I have to admit that I did not find this the clearest part of the book and I hope that I present his arguments fairly. In any case, he questions the widely accepted scientific claim that DNA evidence necessarily points to a population of several thousand from which humanity descended. He adds, however, that even if there should have been more than two ancestors, we still don’t “necessarily have to ditch all traditional views of Adam and Eve” (p. 120). One possibility is that Adam was the chieftain of a tribe, serving as its “federal” head and representative, and that therefore his trespass affected all those connected with him. While not, as far as I can tell, openly challenging the widely accepted idea of a transition from pre-Adamite hominid to human, Collins makes a point of rejecting the idea that such a transition could have taken place by natural means. If it indeed happened, then a special divine “refurbishing” of the pre-existing hominid must have taken place. That is, the image of God must have been bestowed on him. Humans are a special creation and, alone among all creatures, are made in God’s image, an image that was bestowed on them at creation.

What are we to do?

I expect that many among us will question Collins’ suggestions on a number of these points, insisting that he goes “way too far” in his willingness to consider scientific theories. It is possible that he does. He is, however, not alone among believers to take scientific findings seriously: there are other Christian thinkers who have drawn similar conclusions. Among them are apologist C.S. Lewis, Old Testament scholar Derek Kidner, and theologian John Stott. Collins in fact discusses the position of these men. Another well-known theologian who could have been mentioned in this connection is Tim Keller, who a few years ago published a paper explaining his position (similar, on various points, to that of Collins, Lewis, Kidner, and Stott) in considerable detail. That paper, which he titled “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople” can be found on this blog under Collected Papers.

I expect that some readers will also ask why we even pay attention to a book whose author, although affirming the historicity of the first chapters of the Bible, is nevertheless willing to consider the feasibility of scientific theories that are in conflict with the way in which we have traditionally interpreted these chapters. In answering this question I repeat what I have argued before, which is that the only responsible way of dealing with the religious difficulties posed by modern science is to face these difficulties squarely, study the issues carefully and honestly, and (not in the last place) acquaint ourselves with the way in which orthodox, well-informed Christian thinkers – scientists, theologians, and others – are attempting to meet them. For this, surely, is one of the matters that must be tackled “together with all the saints.” Ignoring the problems, while understandable, will not resolve them. Nor is it (if I take our tradition as at all normative) the course we ought to follow as Christians. Where would we be today if our ancestors had simply ignored/denied scientific challenges and forced us to live with unnecessary disconnects between the Bible and a universally accepted scientific conclusion, such as, for example, the heliocentric theory?

By saying this I am not attempting to diminish the difficulties we are facing today. They are daunting. Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck wrote a century ago that not even “a generation or an age” may be able to resolve all the questions that arise in connection with modern learning; it is God who in the course of history must bring light into the darkness. We may have no choice but to live for now with a disconnect – as many a faithful Christian is in fact doing. (In this vein, it may be that some “evolutionary creationists” are too confident about their resolution of the problems, and Todd Wood’s request of them to say “I don’t know” is worth affirming.) But thanks to God and the work of his Spirit, there is no reason for despair. As Art. 5 of the Belgic Confession teaches, and as Collins reminded us, our confidence in the truth of Scripture and of all it reveals does not depend on our ability to reconcile modern science with the Bible. I believe that if we keep this in mind we can be far less fearful when continuing to deal (as indeed we must) with the challenges raised by modern science.

Book Review - Holtvlüwer’s Foundations: Sermons on Genesis 1-3

Late last year, Canadian Reformed minister Rev. Peter Holtvlüwer published a book of sermons on the first few chapters of Genesis. With respect to discussions we’ve had on our blog, it is clear that the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is very important for how we understand the doctrine of creation as well as how we frame conversations regarding Scripture and science.

And so we approached Dr. John Smith, professor of Old Testament studies at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, to undertake an academic review of Holtvlüwer’s Foundations: Sermons on Genesis 1-3. Dr. Smith received a Ph.D. in Septuagint Studies from the University of Toronto in 2005 after writing a dissertation on the Greek translation of the book of Psalms. He served as minister of the Word in Albany, Western Australia, for five years, until last year when he moved back to Canada with his wife Darlene and their three sons and two daughters. Dr. Smith retains his ministerial status with Providence Canadian Reformed Church in Hamilton, Ontario.

We are grateful for Dr. Smith’s engagement and careful review, which you can find in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is given here.

John Piper’s Think: A Review

John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God (Crossway, 2010). ISBN-13: 978-1-4335-2071-6, 222 pages. Cloth $22, Paper $18. Reviewed by Frederika Oosterhoff.

“The chief end of man,” the Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us, “is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” A question that is often asked today concerns the relative role of the heart and of the mind in glorifying and enjoying God. Some Christians place much stress on the mind, on thinking and reasoning and logic. Concerned about attacks upon the Bible by unbelieving scientists and other secular trend-setters, they defend the faith by means of arguments. This approach, which is widely followed also in Reformed circles, falls within the category of apologetics (the reasoned defence of the faith) and worldview analysis.

The approach has biblical warrant. We are to love God with our mind (Matt. 22:37) and must be prepared to give the reasons for the hope we have (1 Pet. 3:15). When they are in discussion with unbelieving intellectuals, Christians should be able to debate with them on their ground. They owe this not only to the unbelievers themselves, but also to fellow-believers. In this tradition there is, however, the danger of intellectualism: of concentrating on the head and forgetting about the role of the heart. In view of this danger, other Christians downplay the role of thinking and instead stress the absolute pre-eminence of the affections, of feeling, doing, and experiencing — in short, of the heart. Although an important correction, this type of thinking runs the danger of anti-intellectualism.

Well-known evangelical author John Piper disagrees with these alternatives. In his new book Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God (2010), Piper rejects “either-or” approaches in the matter of head and heart, thinking and feeling, reason and faith. For him it is a matter of “both-and.” While convinced of the dangers of intellectualism, he just as strongly rejects anti-intellectualism, pointing out that the use of the mind is essential in the life of faith and discipleship. Rigorous thinking is “a necessary, God-ordained means of knowing God” and provides “the kindling for the fires of the heart.”Such thinking does not of course allow for neutrality and intellectual pride. The gospel demands God-centred, biblical, non-autonomous thinking, the sort of thinking that seeks reasons to treasure and desire God above all things.

The Christian mind

Piper is the pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis and has authored several books, including such bestsellers as Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (3^rd ed. 2003), and Don’t Waste Your Life (2003). A Calvinist evangelical and a staunch believer in biblical infallibility, he is widely read also in Reformed circles.

The book now under review has a foreword by historian Mark A. Noll, a long-time friend of Piper and a fellow-evangelical. Noll himself has written about the need for deep, rigorous Christian thinking, most famously so in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994). His concern there was with the weaknesses in evangelical thinking in the realms of “high culture,” such as philosophy, politics, economic theory, historical inquiry, linguistics, literary theory, the history of science, social theory, and the arts; in short, all the disciplines within the range of advanced, specialized, first-order modern scholarship. Quoting a Lebanese Christian scholar, Noll reminded his readers that “at the heart of the crisis in Western civilization lies the state of the mind and the spirit of the universities.” And therefore, “For the sake of greater effectiveness in witnessing to Jesus Christ Himself, as well as for their own sakes, the Evangelicals cannot afford to keep on living on the periphery of responsible intellectual existence” (The Scandal, pp. 25f.). (Noll tells us in the Preface to Piper’s book that he is preparing a sequel to The Scandal. Entitled Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, it is scheduled to appear later this summer. We hope to review it in due time.)

Whether or not Piper agrees with Noll’s message, his book is not about Noll’s type of high-level academic thinking. Unlike Noll, he also does not deal with controversial topics such as the debate on Genesis 1. But neither does he express distrust of modern learning and modern science. His message is of a different nature and applies to all believers, to non-academics as much as to academics. Even though he stresses the importance of thinking, his intention is at no point, as he assures us in the Introduction, to prove the superiority of intellectuals and establish the need for degrees. Nor is it to encourage intellectual endeavours like apologetics or worldview analysis. His concern is with the need for Spirit-enabled thinking in understanding the gospel, and that need is shared by learned and unlearned alike. Such thinking is a means (and an indispensable one at that) which God has given to all those who seek Him, no matter the level of their education.

With respect to the head versus heart controversy, Piper admits that the mind, while indispensable, is the servant of the heart. We are to worship and love God and to enjoy him, and this is first of all a matter of the heart. But empty emotionalism threatens if such love and joy are not awakened by true knowledge of who God really is. Though factual knowledge does not save, it is indispensable. Believers must know and study the contents of the Bible, for how can they believe and love a God they don’t know; a God whose revelation they do not bother to read and try to understand?

Anti-intellectualism

Piper gives a good deal of attention to the prevailing anti-intellectualism in the history of American evangelicalism. He quotes the remark by the early twentieth-century evangelist Billy Sunday (who expressed the feelings, he believes, of many evangelical Christians): “If I had a million dollars I’d give $999,999 to the church and $1 to education.” What was widely believed in Sunday’s time is still widely believed today. Postmodern relativism and pragmatism in fact underscore the message that knowledge and study and serious thinking have little or nothing to do with true faith.

In this connection Piper mentions some Bible texts that are often used as “pillars of anti-intellectualism.” Among them are Luke 10:21, where Jesus gives thanks that God has “hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children,” and 1 Corinthians 1:19,20, where Paul reminds his readers that God “will destroy the wisdom of the wise” and has “made foolish the wisdom of this world.” There are similar warnings about “knowledge” and “the wisdom of this world” elsewhere in the Bible — for example in 1 Corinthians 3:19, Colossians 2:8, and Romans 1:28.

Nevertheless, as Piper concludes, the overwhelming message of the Bible is that knowing the truth is crucial. This demands a diligent use of the mind, always with the realization that proper understanding is God’s gift. After all, Satan also believes the facts of the Bible and trembles. The use of the mind is necessary and indispensable, but it is not decisive. Decisive is the work of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating power. That alone gives certainty. Piper reminds us at the same time that the “wise and learned” of Luke 10 are not necessarily the educated, but the self-reliant and proud. And pride is no respecter of persons; the uneducated are not immune to it. And conversely, highly educated Christians can be found among the “little children” — namely among those who know that they have nothing to contribute to their salvation and are utterly dependent on the cross.

Book Review – Hawking’s The Grand Design

“Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time remains a top seller after 22 years, paralleling his surprising longevity with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This new book, written with Mlodinow (also a theoretical physicist and trade-book author), despite its grand claim says little new, except for providing a surface-level update on the speculative M-theory as well as joining the fashionable ‘Ditchkinses’ in providing naïve jabs at religion….

“Hawking & Mlodinow approach deep spiritual, metaphysical, ontological, and existential questions, but instead of seriously engaging them, they apply superficial physical-reductionistic answers. This is not surprising, given Hawking’s habit of ridiculing religion as outmoded myth, but it is sad nevertheless; I had hoped that he and Mlodinow would have learned from both atheist and Christian critiques of Dawkins and Hitchens. Apparently there remains a significant market for sloppy dismissal of anything to do with faith….

“Hawking and Mlodinow display extreme philosophical and theological naïveté, beginning with their announcement that ‘philosophy is dead’….

“The goal of the book was to answer ‘the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything,’ which they state as: ‘Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other?’ (p. 10). These are good questions, but scientists and the general public, Christian or otherwise, will not receive reliable answers in this failed attempt by Hawking and Mlodinow.”

The above are snippets of my review of The Grand Design, which has been published in the June 2011 issue of Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith; read the entire review here or here, it is also listed in our “Collected Papers”.

Book Review - Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible

The influence of the King James Bible upon the English language and culture is immense. This year, a number of books have been produced to mark the 400^th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version. We have found Tim DeJong, a doctoral student of English, willing and able to review Robert Alter’s Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible, which originated as the 2008 Spencer Trask Lectures at Princeton University. Alter is currently a professor in Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California-Berkeley, where he has taught since 1967. He is the author of numerous books and articles and a recognized expert in ancient Hebrew. In 2007 he published an English translation of the Psalms.

DeJong, who previously reviewed Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind for Reformed Academic, introduces and critiques Alter’s study, which reflects on how the KJV’s distinctive prose and themes have influenced the work of some of America’s great writers, including Melville, Faulkner, and Hemingway. We invite you to engage with DeJong’s review, which is listed in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

Children of God: The Imago Dei in John Calvin and His Context – A Review

Human beings, we read in Genesis 1, are created in God’s image and likeness. Throughout the centuries theologians have struggled with these terms, trying to ascertain their precise meaning. Some have concluded that they refer to the fact that humans, unlike other creatures, have the ability to reason and so to communicate with God. Others believe that they point to the human ability to establish relationships, and still others that they must be interpreted in a functional sense, referring to the fact that human beings were appointed as God’s vice-regents with the specific task of ruling the rest of creation.

Prominent among Reformed contributors to the discussion is the sixteenth-century reformer John Calvin, and it is his views that form the topic of the book now under discussion. The author, Dr. Jason Van Vliet, originally wrote it as a doctoral dissertation for the Theological University at Apeldoorn, The Netherlands (2009). A graduate of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary in Hamilton, ON (1996), he now serves at that seminary in the department of dogmatology. Van Vliet shows that Calvin dealt with the question of the divine image throughout his professional life and that his views developed over time. Calvin’s most important contribution, Van Vliet concludes, lay in his description of the image as referring to the relationship between a Father and his children (as also reflected in the title).

Books by theologians are usually reviewed by theologians. Since Van Vliet’s topic falls within the category of historical theology, however, it was also possible to assign the work of reviewing it to a historian. That is what we did when we asked Richard Oosterhoff to take up the challenge. As the review shows, we made the proper choice. Not only historians, but also theologians (as well as the interested lay person) will appreciate both the contextual framework our reviewer has provided and his informative, extensive, and balanced description and analysis of Van Vliet’s book.

Richard Oosterhoff is a native of southern Ontario and received his B.Sc., with double majors in Biology and Religion and Theology, from Redeemer University College (2005). Now a Ph.D. candidate in the Program in History & Philosophy of Science at the University of Notre Dame, he is writing a dissertation on how a group of Renaissance professors at the University of Paris, some of whom became French reformers, joined their passion for Christ and their piety with deep love of the liberal arts, especially the mathematical arts of the quadrivium. (If you wonder what the quadrivium is, just ask him – but be prepared to endure enthusiasm!) Richard was pleased to spend much of this winter researching in rare book libraries in Paris and southern California, but now that spring has brought daffodils to the Midwest he is very happy to be back in South Bend, Indiana, where he can again enjoy the warm fellowship of Michiana Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA), which he, his wife Elora, and their two little girls had greatly missed during their travels.

The review is found in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

The Passionate Intellect – A Book Review

In The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind, Alister McGrath positions the themes of religion and science as fields that should be integral, not separate. He believes that personal faith adds greatly to the conversations within and among vocations. In this collection of essays, flowing from his past teaching and presentations, McGrath seeks to inform the reader that faith is both a source of life and a matter of intellectual rigour, while at the same time he positions arguments around the new atheism, its agenda, and the opportunity it possibly provides for serious academic debate.

The reviewer of this book is Christina Belcher, Associate Professor of Education at Redeemer University College, who together with her husband Paul attends Stone Ridge Bible Chapel in Hamilton, ON. Former work in faculties of education at Trinity Western University, BC and in Australia and New Zealand, informs her writing and practice. With publications in the area of children’s literature, worldview, and higher education, she seeks in her work to unify a past, present and future view of historical reference prior to proposing hope and reconciliation in matters of an educational nature. As a co-author, she believes that interdisciplinary peer collaboration is helpful in any field in that it prevents what she refers to as a tunnel vision leading to hardening of the categories in our attempts to see worldview perspectives as significant to all of life. She therefore has written articles with peers from other disciplines, and considers learning to be one of the highlights of life.

In the present review, then, McGrath’s book is seen through the lens of an educational practitioner who desires to stimulate greater conversation both within specific disciplines and among different disciplines. We thank Prof. Belcher for her review, posted in our “Collected Papers” (direct link here), and welcome your engagement.

Reviews of Calvin and Culture

Back in September, we posted a book notice about Calvin and Culture, a new volume that is relevant to nearly every Reformed academic. We found a number of people willing to write brief reviews of many of the chapters, and today we begin rolling these reviews out, leaving some time after each one as an opportunity for discussion. Some of our contributors submitted their summaries and critiques some time ago, and others have provided their evaluations with very short notice upon our invitation, and we heartily thank all of our reviewers.

We plan to post the reviews following the sequence of the chapters. As will become clear in the brief summaries and reflections offered by our contributors, few historical figures have matched Calvin’s impact in terms of breadth and longevity. We expect you will agree that the legacy of Calvin in the academic disciplines is strong and worthy of our continued examination, participation, and advancement.

As you can see from the chapters listed at our book notice, several fields of academic study were not included, such as sociology, psychology, linguistics/language, theology. Certainly much has already been written on Calvin’s theology, but if you have any ideas on Calvin’s impact in these other areas, your contribution would be very welcome!

We hope you, our readers, will value and interact with each of these reviews. Part of the calling of the Reformed academic is to be aware of issues in other disciplines instead of being only narrowly focussed on his or her own particular area of teaching and research, and cross-fertilization of ideas is rewardingly fruitful and helps avoid reductionism.

Science vs. Religion – a Comment book review

A scientist who is a Christian usually finds herself somewhat alone in two different communities: within her congregation she is perhaps the only scientist, and within her scientific network she may be the only Christian. In both cases, there is often suspicion and misunderstanding. (The same, I’m told, is true of artists who are Christians.)

For the past year we have been offering many book reviews; here is another one our readers would be interested in. At Cardus, a Canadian public policy think tank which has its roots in Reformational thought, Milton Friesen reviews Elaine Ecklund, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (Oxford University Press, 2010) for Comment online.

Here are three quotes from Friesen’s review, which is available in its entirety here.

• “Despite the binary title, Science vs. Religion is about the need for greater nuance, informed communication, and mutual understanding within the complicated intertwining spaces of religious belief and scientific research.”
• “Ecklund discovered that extreme positions on both sides of the traditional debate have informed the stereotypes we know so well: the atheist scientist who not only declines religion but actively opposes it in a hostile Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens way, and the fundamentalist with fingers in his ears denying direct evidence to protect a cherished belief.”
• “There is indeed a very real clash of cultures born of different ideas, different ideologies, and different practices. While these variances are deep and persistent, Ecklund argues that the tone and nature of the exchange must change. Scientists need to understand far more about how people experience and practice religion and spirituality. They need to be much more skilled in translating what they do for public consumption. If religious scientists don’t open up about their religious and spiritual experiences and convictions, colleagues will continue to assume (incorrectly) that these things are absent from their professional circles.”

While I have not (yet) read Ecklund’s book itself, it appears we can all learn a lot from it in terms of approaching the valuable conversations in a mutually edifying way.

---

Milton Friesen, “What scientists believe”, Comment online, 21 January 2011, http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/2464/.

N.T. Wright on Why Christian Character Matters: A Book Review

In his well-known study Mere Christianity (Book Two), C.S. Lewis describes our world as enemy-occupied territory. Although the rightful King has landed and the ultimate victory has been assured, Satan, the “Prince of this world,” retains much of his power. The situation wherein the King’s followers find themselves today can be compared, Lewis suggests, to that of the people living in Europe between D-Day and VE-Day. Facing the enemy’s ever-increasing hostility, a hostility inflamed by desperation, they are called openly to acknowledge the rightful King and join his cause.

Anglican bishop N.T. Wright issues a similar call in his recent book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (Harper Collins, 2010). But whereas Lewis spoke to unbelievers, calling them to repentance and faith, Wright addresses mature believers, people who want show their allegiance to Christ in their day-to-day life but are not always sure about the path to be followed. Wright seeks to answer their questions by pointing out that the Christian life does not consist in a legalistic rule-keeping but in a transformation of character, one that turns attention away from the self and focuses it on Christ and his cause and kingdom. That manner of living can be summarized in the word “discipleship” and is therefore cross-shaped. It is by these means that Christ’s rule will be extended and the realm of Satan curtailed. In Wright’s own words: “The message that Jesus – the crucified Jesus! – is the world’s true Lord is to be made precisely through the church’s following in his footsteps” (2 Pet. 2:21-23).

Such a life and such a character, as Christians well know, are the gift of the Holy Spirit. But as Wright suggests – and here he refreshingly departs from an influential Christian tradition – it is also a process requiring the believers’ active participation. The virtues that shape the character of Christ’s followers – the virtues of faith, hope, love, humility, chastity, patience, gentleness, and so on – must be constantly pursued and daily practiced, so that in the end they become almost second nature.

With this practical, accessible, and thoroughly biblical study Wright makes an important contribution to the growing literature on Christian lifestyle and discipleship in an increasingly secular society. Those struggling with the challenges of living the Christian life will find it both helpful and encouraging.* For a review see our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

*I realize that Wright’s views on justification (the “New Perspective on Paul” and so on) raise matters of concern among many of us, but these issues have no bearing on this book, or on many of Wright’s other studies. The message of the present work is unquestionably orthodox.

Absence of Mind: A Book Review

Marilynne Robinson, a committed Christian and an admirer of John Calvin, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American novelist as well as a widely esteemed analyst of modern thought. Among the targets of her analytical writings is the abuse which latter-day atheists make of modern science in their attempt to denigrate both religion and the unique nature of humanity — that is, specifically, the reality of human consciousness and of the human mind.

Robinson’s target, then, is not modern science as such, but the fraudulent use of science by the enemies of religion and the cultured despisers of what Robinson calls human exceptionalism. She attacked this abuse in an earlier collection of essays (The Death of Adam, 1998, 2005), and returned to it in a distinguished lecture series at Yale University entitled Absence of Mind (Yale University Press, 2010).

We found Tim DeJong willing to review this study for us and thank him for both his careful, intelligent, and extensive analysis, and for drawing attention, in his conclusion, to the urgent need for a biblical ontology of the mind. Currently a Ph.D. student in English at The University of Western Ontario, Tim was raised in Hamilton, ON, where he received a B.A. in Comparative Literature and Philosophy from McMaster University. After spending a year in Spain to complete his M.A. in English at the Madrid Campus of Saint Louis University, he is happy to be back in beautiful south-western Ontario. He lives with his wife Biz in London, ON, where they attend Pilgrim Canadian Reformed Church.

The review can be found in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

A New Bonhoeffer Biography

Prominent among Christian martyrs of modern times is the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who in April 1945, just before the arrival of the allied armies, was executed on Hitler’s orders. Bonhoeffer became known not only for his heroic opposition to Hitler, but also and especially for the fact that this opposition was motivated by his allegiance to Christ. Resistance to the Nazi regime was for him a matter of following the Christ who (as Bonhoeffer writes in one of his books), when he calls a man, “bids him come and die.” His theology was a theology of discipleship and therefore not of triumph or worldly comfort, but of the cross.

The standard biography of Bonhoeffer was written shortly after the war by his friend and former student Eberhard Bethge. Since then many commentaries have appeared on Bonhoeffer’s life and work but no full-fledged new biography. That gap is now filled by Eric Metaxas (the author also of a recently published and highly acclaimed biography of William Wilberforce). In his Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (2010), Metaxas makes use of Bethge’s work but comes with additional material and with new insights as well. In my review I draw attention to similarities between this biography and James K.A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom, which I reviewed earlier. Although there are important differences between the two books, both have much to teach us about the Christian life in the world of today, and I hope that both will be read and studied among us.

For the review see our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

Poythress on Language: A Book Review

Where does language come from, and how does it develop? What does the character of language tell us about the Triune God, about the nature of created reality, and about us as human beings? What happens to truth when the words which convey it are translated? The field of linguistics, especially when done from a Christian perspective, digs into questions such as these. Vern Poythress, a Reformed academic and author of Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (which has been mentioned on this blog here and here), recently published another book in his “God-Centered” series, this one on linguistics. We are grateful to Francine VanWoudenberg Sikkema for writing an in-depth review of In The Beginning Was The Word: Language—A God-Centered Approach. The book is also freely available online as a PDF.

Francine is a graduate of Trinity Western University, where she received an M.A. in Linguistics with a focus on Bible translation. She has also studied biblical languages at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary. She is currently working as a freelance editor. She lives in Hamilton, ON with her husband Tim and their pre-born baby, where they are preparing to do mission work in Lae, Papua New Guinea.

Francine’s review of In The Beginning Was The Word is listed in our “Collected Papers”, and a direct link is here. We invite your responses.

Book Notice: Calvin and Culture

We would like to draw our readers’ attention to a valuable wide-ranging new book relevant to every Reformed academic: David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R Publishing, 2010). A wonderful heritage of Calvinism, as compared to many other branches of Christianity, is that it has unpacked the breadth of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ: it is much more than the salvation of human souls, but is something for each of us (including the academic) to be involved in for the glory of God and the benefit of man as we shape and reshape culture.

The book, part of the Calvin 500 series, contains one 20- to 40-page chapter each on how Calvin or Calvinism relates to the academic disciplines:

Ch. 1. 1929 and All That, or What Does Calvinism Say to Historians Searching for Meaning?, by Darryl G. Hart
Ch. 2. Law, Authority, and Liberty in Early Calvinism, by John Witte Jr.
Ch. 3. The Arts and the Reformed Tradition, by William Edgar
Ch. 4. Calvin’s Contributions to Economic Theory and Policy, by Timothy D. Terrell
Ch. 5. Calvinism and Literature, by Leland Ryken
Ch. 6. Calvin’s Legacy in Philosophy, by William C. Davis
Ch. 7. Calvin, Politics, and Political Science, by Paul Marshall
Ch. 8. Calvinism and Science, by Don Petcher
Ch. 9. John Calvin’s Impact on Business, by Richard C. Chewning
Ch. 10. Calvin and Music, by Paul S. Jones
Ch. 11. Medicine: In the Biblical Tradition of John Calvin with Modern Applications, by Franklin E. (Ed) Payne, MD
Ch. 12. Calvin as Journalist, by Warren Cole Smith
Ch. 13. The Future of Calvinism as a Worldview, by David W. Hall

We know that there are members of the Canadian Reformed churches who have academic degrees in many of the areas represented in this publication. And so we sincerely invite your reviews of this book. By special arrangement with the publisher, we are able to send you a chapter of your choice at no charge, and would like to have your concise (three- to five-paragraph) review completed for publication here on the blog. To participate, please contact us at ReformedAcademicBlog@gmail.com.

Desiring the Kingdom: Book Review

“Preach the Gospel always; if necessary use words.” This advice, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, is often heard today, also in our circles. It is usually quoted to remind Christians of the need to combine verbal evangelism with a truly Christian lifestyle, but it is also used in attacks on what are seen as intellectualist tendencies in the Protestant tradition. St. Francis’ words then serve to show that practice must come before doctrine, knowledge of the heart before knowledge of the mind, and discipleship before abstract teaching.

In his book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Baker Academic, 2009), Calvin College philosopher James K.A. Smith joins the debate in support of the second usage. His thesis is that human beings are primarily desiring creatures rather than “thinking things,” and that Christian education must therefore focus not first of all on the inculcation of ideas, but on the development of the proper desires – that is, desires that are directed to God’s Kingdom. For a review of this informative and provocative study see our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

Recovering the Reformed Confession: A Book Review by David DeJong

At Reformed Academic, we are interested in discussing topics in any area of academic study from a Reformed Christian perspective. Thus we here present an essay review on a recent significant volume in theology.

R. Scott Clark, professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, published Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice (P&R, 2008). We thank David DeJong, a graduate of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary and currently a theology doctoral student at Notre Dame, for writing the review, which can be found in our “Collected Papers” (see the sidebar); a direct link is here.

We welcome your responses to Clark’s book as well as to DeJong’s critical review.