Irenaeus: Primary Text Analysis

Among the various voices that entered into conversation in the early development of the church, Irenaeus offers a significant harmony. He is one of the post apostolic fathers that has come to define the term orthodoxy and is one of the earliest anti-heretical proponents. Our conversation will surround chapters twenty-two and twenty-three of the third book which comprises his theological treatise Against Heresies. Our conversation will begin with a short introduction to the life and scope of Irenaeus’s context, followed by a brief summary of the chapters we are concerning ourselves with, proceeding with the variety of sub-themes Irenaeus uses in arguing his main thesis of the incarnation and atoning work of Christ, and concluding with an explanation of my personal appreciation of Irenaeus’s works.

Irenaeus is the earliest anti-heretical author whose works have survived. He was born in approximately 120 A.D. most likely in Smyrna. Around 170, he settled in the city of Lyons, where he participated in the community of believers by serving the Bishop of that see, Pothinus as a presbyter.^[1] In 177, Irenaeus went to Rome where he found bishop and friend alike flocking to the heretical movements of the Montanists and the Valentinians. This trip was formative for Irenaeus in two ways: first, we can be almost certain that it was this trip that spurred Irenaeus to pen his treatise, Against Heresies. Second, when he returned to Lyons, he found that the bishop had been martyred and Irenaeus had been named successor to the see of Lyons where he remained and served to the end of his days.^[2]

As was stated before, it was while serving as Bishop, that he wrote this treatise, Against Heresies, primarily as a response to the writings and teachings of Valentinus, who was the progenitor of the Valentinan Gnostic sect.^[3] According to Valentinus, or what can be pieced together as being Valentinus’ argument, Christ and Jesus are two different beings. Christ is a demiurge, who descended upon the human Jesus at His baptism and left Him before His passion. Christ’s mission was to bring humanity knowledge so that our spirits might be freed from our bodies.^[4] While there were many flavours of Gnosticism floating around at the time, Irenaeus felt need only to challenge Valentinus as he says, “it is not needful, that one should drink up the ocean who wishes to learn that its water is salty.”^[5] There are many theological themes that Irenaeus weaves together. It must be understood that at Irenaeus’ point in time, there was no such thing as systematic theology. Thus, what we have in Against Heresies, is not a systematized explanation of theology proper, but is a refutation of an argument through which we can determine an understanding of Irenaeus’ theological thoughts. Therefore, we should be holding his theology loosely, more as a way of moving away from heretical positions, rather than towards theological orthodoxy. Although Irenaeus’ writings have indeed become a marker of orthodoxy.  As such, there are a few themes we should focus on in this paper: creation, theological method, the Imago Dei, the Virgin Mary, Gnosticism, and the state of the church. Obviously, not all of these are theological themes, but nevertheless, the historical context of a select writing is always important.

In chapter xxii, Irenaeus is explaining what God has done in Christ. His argument in this book and in this section is based primarily on the witness of Scripture and the Tradition of the church. Irenaeus is saying that we know these things because Scripture says so, and because of the tradition of the church. Christ did inherit flesh from his earthly mother. For if He is not made in our flesh, then Christ is not made in the image of God. If He was not flesh, why would He have chosen to come down through Mary? He hungered, just as we do. He wearied, just as we do. He wept and bled, just as we do. Therefore, he must have been as we are. There is a connection between Christ and Adam, where Adam was an animal creature, so Christ must have also been. Just as Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.

In chapter xxiii, Irenaeus moves from explaining what was necessary and proving that God did what was necessary, that is becoming incarnate, to explaining why God did it this way. God became man so that man no more should die, bringing His creation from death into newness of life. God undid what Adam had done in submitting himself(Adam) to Satan, God freed Adam and his descendants from the yoke of captivity to Satan. Satan had tricked man into thinking that they could become as gods. God, recaptured humanity and in so doing was loosed from the bonds of condemnation. We are from Adam, therefore, we receive the same condemnation that Adam receives. If God has saved us, through Christ, it would make sense that Adam too has been liberated from captivity. Adam and Eve were not cursed directly. The ground was cursed, and therefore Adam's work was cursed. Likewise, Eve’s labour in childbearing and her relationship with her husband were cursed. Only the serpent was directly cursed. Hell was not a creation intended for man, but for the cursed. Those who like Satan and his angels do not repent of their sin shall count themselves apart of those who apostatize. Cain is the first example of the result of Adam’s disobedience. Cain is not only guilty of idolatry as is the case with Adam and Eve, but also murder and false witness. It was not by any means other than his own that Cain committed such a horrible offence against both others and God. We see in Cain's attempt to beguile God that he is unrepentant. Adam however, is a different case. For he offended God through the temptation of another. The effect was for Adam to try and hide himself. Because Adam felt unworthy to appear before God and to interact with Him. The guilt of his sin led to repentance, in the form of clothing himself. As a result, God shows mercy to Adam who is penitent. God's removing of Adam from the garden was a mercy in the sense that God then made it impossible for man to go on sinning forever. In so doing, God established a boundary for sin, so that man might die to sin, and begin to live to God. He did this through Christ. Upon God's victory over Satan, Adam received new life, and the last enemy, death, was destroyed. Therefore, if Adam does not receive salvation, the whole human race does not receive salvation.

It must first be stated and understood that the way in which Irenaeus arrives at his conclusions are not in ways that would be immediately accepted or assumed by theologians after the modern period. His method is one of beginning with assumptions about divine realities and then providing a piece of Scripture for his argument, what now would be considered proof-texting. As an example we will briefly take into consideration his first point in this brief excerpt of reading: Christ did indeed inherit flesh from his earthly mother. His point in the point of this chapter rests not directly on the transmission of humanity from Mary to Jesus, although, it will play a significant role in the following arguments. His primary concern in point 3.22.1 is establishing the connection between Adam and Jesus. Since humanity’s sin is in Adam, and humanity’s salvation is in Christ, if Christ has not assumed image as well as the likeness of God that was given to humanity, then there is no salvation in Christ for humanity. Ignatius then points to passages in Matthew, Galatians, and Romans in support of his argument. Here we see Irenaeus concerned mostly with his argument. This would be slightly problematic for us to accept if the connection made between Adam and Jesus was one that only Irenaeus was trying to make. The assumption of connection between Christ and Adam is one that the church had already held. Thus Irenaeus is trying to argue for the tradition of the church by using Scripture to support his arguments. We must understand that at this point in time, the NT canon had not been formed officially, and so the statements made by the church held more weight than the propositions made by Scripture.

As was stated earlier in the paper, Irenaeus is concerned with the defense of the church as a community of believers against heresies, not the positing of theological ideas. Alister McGrath in his book, Christian Theology explains the historical development of heresy and orthodoxy, “[T]he basic unity within the early Christian churches did not seem to be located at the level of doctrines, but at the level of relationship with the same Lord.” McGrath goes on to explain that the terms orthodoxy and heresy developed as the churches began to reject previously accepted ways of explaining the fundamentals of Christianity in order “to find the best way of expressing the core themes of faith.”^[6] Irenaeus’ appeal to what the church had been saying for generations and to what the majority of the churches still accepted to be true is his way of upholding the best way of expressing the core themes of faith. As we get into a conversation about Gnosticism, it will become evident why such a defense was necessary, for now, let us begin to understand the arguments that Irenaeus was defending from the Gnostic heretics.

Among the chief concepts that Irenaeus was concerning himself with, the concept of recapitulation is of utmost importance for him. He makes mention of the term three times in the course of our excerpts alone: 3.22.1, 3.22.2, and 3.23.1. Irenaeus is concerned with the idea of Christ acting as the new Adam. What Christ has done through the atonement, he could only have done as human. Only if Christ has also freed Adam from the captivity and enslavement to Satan and his tyrannies, can we who are in Adam also be free. What Adam and Eve have done through disobedience in believing Satan’s lies, is undone through the obedience of Jesus and Mary. This idea is known as recapitulation. Unfortunately, as Gonzalez points out, “[t]he term ‘recapitulation’ has various meanings in ancient writers, and Irenaeus himself uses it in more than one sense.”^[7] However, the basic gist of the term means to place under a new head. Humanity is no longer under the headship of Adam, but is now under the headship of Christ. As such, as we continue to live under the headship of Christ, we grow in likeness to him who is the image of God. This brings us to the distinction Irenaeus makes between the image and the likeness of God.

The general title this conversation fits under is called the “Imago Dei”, or image of God. This again is one of those theological themes that has been altered over time by various periods of theological development, needless to say that today, the concept of the image of God is different than Irenaeus’ understanding of it. Paul Jewett in his book Who We Are: Our Dignity as Human, helps to explains that Irenaeus is the first who attempts to answer the question of how we are to understand humanity as having the image of God in light of our fallen nature. Jewett explains that Irenaeus postulated a drastic difference between the image and likeness of God in humanity, “On the one hand, the image bestowed in creation, he argued, is unlosable. Even as sinners, all men and women are in God’s image. On the other hand, the likeness to God with which our first parents were endowed is lost in the Fall. It can be restored only as we are sanctified by the Spirit of Christ.” Jewett goes on to explain in a footnote that this distinction was argued against by the reformers as they came to regard that this as an example of Jewish parallelism, that the image and likeness of God are two ways of talking about the same thing.^[8] While the theme of the image of God in Irenaeus could easily be made into its own paper, it is enough for us to understand this as a supporting argument for Irenaeus’s concept of recapitulation in two senses: First, if Christ does not assume the same image as Adam, that is our flesh, Christ cannot save that flesh that is in Adam. Second, it was necessary for God to free humanity from our slavery to death and corruption, because as the image of God, if we remain conquered, God therefore also remains conquered.

The image of God is a necessary component to Irenaeus’ argument for He is ultimately arguing that Christ assumed God’s image in as much as He assumed humanity in its totality. Therefore, Mary the mother of Jesus is of penultimate concern, since it is from her that Christ receives His humanity. We cannot overlook or overemphasize the importance of where Christ’s humanity comes from. Irenaeus goes so far as to say, “by yielding obedience, (Mary has) become the cause of salvation.”^[9] Just as Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve. Just as he makes the connection between Adam and Christ, in that Christ becomes the new Adam and in so doing we who are under Adam become now under Christ, Irenaeus also makes the connection between Eve and Mary. Irenaeus exhorts us, if nothing else, that we should make note of Mary’s faith, for through her faith came the possibility of our salvation. Mary should by rights be included in our concept of recapitulation, at least as far as Irenaeus is concerned. Irenaeus is not alone as he uses this way of including Mary in theological conversation throughout his work, rather he is very much in keeping with the tradition of how the church had viewed Mary for some century and a half. In so doing, Irenaeus is challenging his Gnostic opponents in two ways: First, by appealing to the tradition of the church, he is drawing conclusions that have already been drawn, namely that Christ was human and His humanity came from Mary. Second, the idea of a woman playing a part in the economy of salvation would have been an absurdity, not only because women held a less than important position in his point in time, but also because women were seen as especially impure in the eyes of the Gnostics. This concept will become more clear as we get into our conversation about Gnosticism, for now it is enough to understand that it would not make any sense for those outside the Tradition of the church to be understanding Mary in such a pivotal way. Having a robust mariology is important when we consider Irenaeus’ argument against heresies in trying to discredit Christ’s humanity. But keep in mind, that Irenaeus does not call upon Mary as the central figure in the divine economy, she is merely included in the conversation.^[10]

We can imagine that since Irenaeus is so adamantly defending the notion of Christ incarnate, that his opponent was arguing against Christ’s humanity. And thus, we come to understand one of the greatest threats to Christ’s gospel, the underplaying of his humanity. Gnosticism is as difficult a term to define as the word Christian, because it means many things. The word gnosis literally means knowledge, therefore we can make the association in our minds of Gnosticism having something to do with coming to understand knowledge. As it would be, Irenaeus has been known to be the first to use the term. While all religious groups and philosophical thought have knowledge as an important aspect of their system of beliefs, Irenaeus noted that “the Gnostics appeared to give it a major, central and distinctive role in their understanding of reality and salvation.”^[11] With understanding the importance of knowledge within the Gnostic framework, we can also make the connection with knowledge and the mind. If knowledge has special importance, then the mind will also have special importance. For Gnostics, the mind was superior and the body was what constrained the mind from its true potential. Therefore, when thinking of Christ as the utmost spiritual knowledge, the idea of Him having a body is almost offensive. Contrary to what we might expect, Gnosticism is not a dead threat. Any thought that attempts to view the spirit and body of a person as polemical entities or attempts to downplay the humanity of Christ is in a sense a type of Gnostic vein of thought.

            By far the most powerful components of Irenaeus’ work is his take on atonement. This theme dominates the entire second chapter of our selected excerpts. Irenaeus naturally moves from discussing the reality of Christ’s humanity to explaining why it was necessary for Christ to assume that incarnation. For Irenaeus recapitulation is the means through which Christ accomplishes what was fitting for Him to accomplish. God’s recapitulation of humanity is the only way that God can recapture humanity from the oppressive powers of Satan. This theme of victory or freedom from captivity is a theme that has obvious images of violent military action, that is, if the analogy is taken to its excessive conclusion. In his book Saving Power, Peter Schmiechen reminds us of the potential theme of Christ’s atoning work being of violence done towards Satan, as though humanity is a piece of land being fought over by opposing townships. Schmiechen reminds us, “Irenaeus’s contention that the means of salvation used by God was not like the violence of Satan, but a form of persuasion that was just and reasonable.” Schmiechen continues, “It is difficult to understand Irenaeus’s point until we actually see what he means by the just and gracious persuasion of God. It is here that he launches into the praise of Christ’s suffering and the outpouring of the Spirit, actions directed not toward Satan but toward us.”^[12]

This concept of God focusing all of His efforts and actions towards the securing of His creation for His purposes is significant to me in a number of ways. Last semester I defended the concept of Christ’s atoning work being that of victory over our Spiritual oppressors based on Gustaf Aulèn’s classic work, Christus Victor, in which he draws the connection between the theme of victory in the post apostolic fathers as epitomized in Irenaeus to the theological work of Martin Luther. The reason why Aulèn’s allusions resonate with me is because I am drawn to Luther’s understanding of human conflict with God. When I read Luther, there is an aspect of reality I see Luther interacting with in regards to sin and its power over us as fallen humanity. In my mind language of victory over these forces of which no human can free him/herself from is a powerful image, one that promises a totality of separation from sin and an absolute union in Christ. I may have a misunderstanding of the legitimacy in drawing a connection from Luther’s comprehension of the true gravity of sin to Irenaeus’s image of Christ’s victory over the tyrants, perhaps because it is such an emotional theme. Although Aulen may have overstated the historical reality of the theme of victory in the post apostolic fathers and in Luther, I cannot help but observe the reality I see as highlighted in this language used for understanding Christ’s atoning work. Irenaeus articulates for me realities I earnestly hope for. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this theme for me is the idea that the enemy of God is not us but the tyrants. Schmiechen underlines my feelings well when he says,

In Irenaeus, the inclusion of wondrous love is made without any regret. Having started with the bold declaration of Christ’s victory over Satan, he concludes with the praise of the self-sacrifice of Jesus for us, freely offered and confirmed by the bestowal of God’s very Spirit.^[13]

In so doing, Irenaeus subverts the apparent dualism between the object and the subject of God’s atoning work.

            Irenaeus is a shining exemplary figure in the history of the church and her theological development. Although not the only source of orthodoxy, Irenaeus is a primary voice of what it means to hold orthodox theological positions when understood within the context of the chorus of voices participating in the worshipful business of the church. Irenaeus provides us with language that enables us to understand the significance of Christ’s incarnation and how the incarnation is intricately concerned with the salvation of humanity by means of liberation from captivity to Satan and his works to freedom in Christ.

---

^[1] Philip Schaff, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1 of Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885), 834.

^[2] Justo Gonzalez, From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, vol.1 of A History of Christian Thought (Nashville: Abingdon press, 1987), 158.

^[3] Gonzalez, 134.

^[4] Gonzalez, 130.

^[5] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.19.8.

^[6] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, LTD., 2011), 113.

^[7] Gonzalez, 166.

^[8]  Paul Jewett, Who We Are: Our Dignity as Humans: A Neo-Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans publishing company, 1996), 56.

^[9] Irenaeus, 3.22.4.

^[10] Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals: Toward and Understanding of the Mother of Our Lord (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2006), 132.

^[11] Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), s.vv. “Gnosis, Gnosticism.”

^[12] Peter Schmiechen, Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church (Grand Rapids: WIlliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 128.

^[13] Schmiechen, 128.

Exegesis: Babel Narrative

As with many Biblical stories that people do not know what to do with, the Babel narrative has often been associated with stories told to children at Sunday school or before they fall asleep in their beds. However, a closer reading of the passage considering its content and context reveals a narrative concerned with: providing an etiology for language plurality, satirical mockery, and the final installment of the events that transpire due to the fall. Just because there is no graphic violence or explicit sexuality, does not mean that this passage should be swept under the rug. People are rarely concerned with the Babel narrative, perhaps because it is seen as a simple etiology, or perhaps because its content is not as fantastic as the flood narrative, there are no pervading unanswerable questions, did God really create everything out of nothing? It is perhaps for this reason that we can truly draw out some fresh perspectives, not only on the individual passage but also on humanity as a whole. The argument this paper is attempting to state is that Genesis 11:1-9 is speaking of more than just the etiology of language, but also how society as a whole, with all our accomplishments and attempts to re-establish our relationship with God, without His guiding lovingkindness, are fruitless. 

The Babel narrative is the final installment of the primeval history section, that is the section that does not deal specifically with the nation that is Israel. In attempting to find structure in the primeval history, J. Blenkinsopp argues that “[g]enesis 1-11 reflects the structure of the Atrahasis Epic, with an introduction (Gen 2:1-3; cf Atrahasis Epic 1.1-351), three threats (Genesis 2:4-3:24; 4:23-24; 6:11-9:29; cf. Atrahasis Epic 1.352-415; 2.1.1-5.21; 2.5.22-3.6.4) and a conclusion (Gen 11:1-32; cf. Atrahasis Epic 3.6.5-8.18), a sequence that he calls the ‘ancestor epic pattern.’”# Even though all of the individual stories can function independently, the genealogies act as a literary sinew that connects all of the narratives together. The lack of human character development allows the reader to focus on the character of God and on the subject matter of Genesis, telling us who we are and God’s disposition towards us. The primeval history is introduced by the blessings and commandments issued in Genesis 1 to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the animals. The three threats in some way or another are antonyms of these blessings, with the exception of the command to multiply, humanity has apparently no inkling of desire to disobey that directive. All of the threats build up in anticipation to the conclusion brought together in the Babel narrative, which finally sets the stage for God’s decisive action in calling on Abram through whom He will bless all the nations.   

It is of first importance to understand the context of the passage at hand. The two genealogies that bookend the Babel narrative are important both individually and together. The genealogy found in chapter 10 explains humanity’s connection together, that all came from Noah. God desired to use Noah as a new Adam for creation, with the brief episode of Ham’s debasement of his father the story is quick to convey that even when God starts over again, creation and specifically humanity is stilled riddled with the effects of the fall. The genealogy we find here is what is referred to as a segmented genealogy, which is intended to “fill out the families of characters who no longer will play a central role in the pentateuchal story.”# This leads us to understand that the people in this genealogy are no longer of importance to the narrative, and indeed with the proceeding genealogy in 11:10-26 being linear, that is it “connects characters at the center of the unfolding of the plot.”# However, what is of interest to us here is the preceeding genealogy, in that it provides us with an explanation of the surrounding cultures in the mesopotamian area, not to be taken literally necessarily, but this being the final installation of the primeval history, there are notes of transition from out-of-time accounts to real life situations. One scholar suggests that we understand the segmented genealogy in chapter 10 to be an explanation of the surrounding cultures. The genealogy is first concerned with the genealogy of Japheth, after this account there is little or no reference of the descendants of Japheth. For instance Tarshish is used in the book of Jonah to reference the place Jonah was escaping to, the notion is that he was fleeing from the call of God to a place as far away as any, Jonah might as well have been trying to get to the moon. The point is that Tarshish is a place far from Israel/Nineveh, so in Genesis 10, it is an explanation of cultures and nations far from Israel, ones that are ultimately of no consequence to Israel. The descendants of Ham however include people like Canaan. The obvious significance of the land of Canaan to the people of Israel is rather axiomatic, this signifies that the people who derive from Ham are those who are of immediate concern to the people of Israel. This correlates with the proceeding curse applied to Ham after the debacle in the tent with his father Noah. Finally, the genealogy gets to Shem who was the recipient of a blessing from Noah. It is with Shem that we are most concerned with because in 11:10-26 we read of the connection between Shem and Terah, the father of Abram. The Shem genealogy is divided in both accounts at Peleg for in vv25 we read, the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided. the account goes on then to describe the descendants of Joktan, the brother of Peleg. It is with this division that chapter 11 speaks of. Although, chapter 11 is not the first mention of Babel. In the account of the sons of Ham, we read that Cush was the father of Nimrod, who established the kingdoms of Babylon(or Babel), Erech, Accad and Calneh, which are in the land of Shinar which is the area that Genesis 11 is concerned with. Nimrod’s name literally means “we shall rebel,”# indicating the rebellious example that we are to unpack in chapter 11. With this background information in mind, we can now approach the text at hand.

 Chapter 11 opens up with the word ‘Now’ indicating a literary break from the previous section. This phrase shows up continually after genealogies and narratives to pronounce a new direction in the text. We see this all throughout the primeval section of Genesis in the garden(2:5, 10), in the fall(3:1, 20), with Cain and Abel(4:1) and with Noah(5:29, 6:1, 11). It is a common literary marking found all over the Old and New Testaments, so in that commonality there is nothing particularly unique in its use in this passage, only that we know we are dealing with a narrative break in the text. The text continues that the whole earth or world used one language and the same words. This draws our attention to the unity of the people of the earth at a time before the diversifying of Noah’s family. Genesis 10:5, 20, 31-32 all indicate that the diversification of language had happened already. However, the ambiguity of verse 2 regarding who these people are who built this city is perhaps pointing to the fact that this truly is an etiological explanation for the development of language at a time before Noah’s sons scattered, but after the flood.

Verse 2 tells us that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there, the land where Nimrod in 10:10 is said to have established the great cities and civilizations of Babylon and Assyria. The NASB says as they journeyed east, whereas the NRSV says as they migrated from the east. Regardless of where they were coming from, they found themselves at the plains of Shinar. Hamilton notes that whether they are going east or coming from the east is moot, “they are east of Canaan, east of Eden, this is the judgment bestowed upon Adam and Eve.# Whoever these people are they are travelling in the greater Mesopotamian area and they are under God’s judgment. They come to this land of Shinar and they decide to settle there, the correlation of travelling east of Eden and settling at this place they have come to cannot be overlooked. This is, ultimately is the primary threat of the text, that they are congregating at one place, disobeying God’s command to fill the earth and subdue it. From this disobedience comes the idea to build a tower and a city which we will see momentarily. The focal point is not the city or the tower ultimately, they are only bi-products of this initial act of disobedience.

Verse 3 really begins the satirical discourse regarding the decisions of these people who settle at Shinar. The key phrases here ‘they said’ and ‘come’ are part of the chiastic emphasis that we will unpack after the exegete, for now it is good enough to identify it as an echo of God’s speaking creation into existence. But as a father might construct banks and buildings of residence in the coordination of city planning, these people are attempting something like what a toddler might dream up as he plays with his lego. They use tar for mortar and burnt brick instead of stone. Hamilton mentions that “Even the means for building the structure is reference to humanity’s impotence, they couldn’t even use good Palestinian stone, they had to use man made brick.”# Verse 4 we read their intention, “They said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’” This is most likely referring to the Babylonian Ziggurat, the temple of Marduk. This is an attempt to reverse the effects of the fall, that humanity would try and build for themselves a way into God’s rest. We read some type of man made tree of life, one that would allow their name to live forever, and their name does indeed live forever but not in the way they expected. “The making a name,” says Hamilton, “and the prevention of scattering cannot be separated.”# Perhaps this is telling us that humanity wanted to provide for themselves a way of re-entering righteousness without the help of God, or perhaps they so desperately wanted to re-enter relationship with God that this was the only way they could think of, a self provision of the mountain of God, a type of synthetic Sinai. In the NIV the name for themselves is predicated on the building of the tower and so that they will not be scattered. In NASB and NRSV the making the name for ourselves is separated from the action of construction, the name they make for themselves is not necessarily due to the building of the tower. Regardless, the language indicates that if they don’t do either of these things, they will be scattered. So the emphasis in the NIV is on making a name for themselves while in the NASB/NRSV it is on them not wanting to be scattered. This also lends to the chiastic structure of the passage in that the fears of the people echo the judgment that is about to be bestowed upon them.

Verse 5 is the hinge of the passage, changing from human endeavour to the response of God and as such, it brings to mind a number of significant concepts. First, continuing with the satirical commentary, “Despite man’s attempt to build a tower to the heavens, God must still come down to see.”# Man’s greatest achievement when set alongside God’s omnipotence makes man look quite impotent. Second, when we read that God came down, we must think of this in two senses. The image of God coming down presents us with the pretense of judgment just as we see in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God is about to act in response to the sinfulness of man. However the idea is also similar to those instances of God coming down to mount Sinai, God coming down to Aaron and Miriam at the tent, God coming down to humanity through the incarnation. God coming down to see on one hand it is a response to humanity’s rebellion and on the other hand God’s action is an antidote rather than punishment, always provisional, never retributive. It is God’s way of providing for humanity, a way of restricting the effects of sin, just as we have see with the mark of Cain. God is coming down to see, He is about to do something.

In verse 6 we see how God reacts to what humanity is up to. The phrase ‘the Lord said’ echoes the actions of those who built the tower in verses 3 and 4. Here there is discrepancy in the text regarding complete/incomplete language. The NIV says If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. NASB states, They are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. NRSV, They are one people,... and this is only the beginning of what they will do. There seems to be some translation disagreement going on here. Regardless, the unification of one nation and tongue means limitless possibilities. If we look forward we see God covenants with Abram, bringing blessing through Abram to all the nations. That He will bless all nations indicates that this unification is not the best situation for humanity, at least not through the means that they are attempting. Looking at the one people with the one language, God says this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. This is not a fear, that what they strive to achieve is in some way threatening God, rather it shows more of a concern for humanity. In a sense we see God worried not for Himself but for humanity, just as a parent shows concern for a wayward child.

The solution to humanity’s rebellion is again brought to bear through God’s action. The antidote lies in verse 7, “Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” Brueggemann points out that this should be understood as “They do not listen to one another,” rather than “They cannot understand.” Just as in Genesis 42:21, “failed speech is linked to the disappearance of trust. Not listening is related to death in relationships.”# To which Kidner adds, “It makes it clear that unity and peace are not ultimate goods: better division than collective apostasy.”#

The result of God’s judgment is found in verse 8, So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Here we read that the very thing that they were hoping to avoid in building the city is brought to them through the building of the city. And in verse 9, the bestowment of the name, therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. Here the connection is made to Babel, that is Babylon. Through this we understand that Babylon was under the judgment of God and that Babylon’s greatest accomplishment was really their greatest downfall, a final satirical blow to the national powerhouse.

As I had mentioned before, the entire passage has a marked chiastic emphasis to it, with verse 5 being the hinge looking like this:

A - vv. 1 The whole earth used the same language

    B - vv. 3b Come, let us

        C - vv. 4a Build for ourselves a city, and tower

            D - vv. 5a The LORD came down

        C1 - vv. 5b the city and the tower which the sons of men had built

    B - vv. 7 Come, let Us

A - vv. 9 the language of the whole earth

With every action that is made, there is a response issued from God in order to correct humanity’s blunders or reinstitute God’s decree.

The last question we must address is what theological insights in this passage can we apply ourselves to? In his introduction to the commentary on the primeval history Victor Hamilton directs our minds to the underlying, overarching narrative saying,

Babel is a demonstration of the folly of the most illustrious civilization and religious system of the day, the indication that without God’s blessing on the human situation, humanity is without hope... If it (the primeval history) wants to show us that man’s plight is the product of his own disobedience and indeed is bound to worsen without divine intervention, Genesis 1-11 is providing a picture of the world at odds with mesopotamia and modern understanding.

The entire story of Babel builds up to the pronouncement of Babylon. Although the effect is lost in English translations, many of the words have this alliteration escalation of babbling Babylon. The narrative, operating on an isolated plain proves to show that man’s greatest achievements are vanity, but Babylon’s more so. Hamilton also makes note that, “unlike creation and flood, no good correlating story exists in other Near Eastern societies.” However, as we have already pointed out, the concept of building a tower that reaches to the heavens is similar to what the Babylonians attempted to do with their Ziggurats. The passage’s place within the primeval history as the concluding episode of humanity’s attempts to frustrate God’s creative efforts even after the flood is a continuation of the theme of creation, decreation, recreation. Regardless of man’s attempts to achieve independent dominion over creation and even God, God will continue to provide divine antidotes to the human problem. The primeval history seeks, especially with the genealogy that follows the Babel narrative, to connect Abraham and eventually Israel with the rest of creation, making the assertion that Israel is really nothing special in comparison to the rest of creation. God does not choose to establish Israel for any reason other than that He loves them and the rest of His creation. Within it’s place in the rest of the canon, the primeval account tells us more about God’s disposition towards humanity than it does about God’s creative acts. The primeval history connects the reader to a time when no one was around, relaying divine knowledge about the etiologies of things people might ask of themselves, through mythological language. As the concluding account of the primeval history, Babel plays a more prominent role than many would give it credit.

For Luther, the root of this passage is in Nimrod, the story ultimately begins with him. Luther draws a parallel between Nimrod and Cain, in that Nimrod establishes a city for himself the way that Cain establishes a ‘false church.’ Luther does not draw conclusions about the actual tower, for this is mere conjecture, however, Luther is interested in understanding the sins of the people who build the tower. “I believe their motive is expressed in the words: ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower.’ These words are evidence of smug hearts, which put their trust in the things of this world without trusting God and despise the church because it lacks all power and pomp.”# Ultimately their sin is extraordinary smugness and contempt for Yahweh. We should keep in mind that for Luther, everything in the Bible has a worldly equivalent in his time. For him, the sons of Ham who establish the city are likened to the Turkish people and the Papacy. Luther also comments on the fact that God allowed the men to build, or begin to build this tower, “[b]ut after the sin has been committed, God ‘comes down’; that is, then at last it is realized that He is at hand and is angry.”#  Finally, it is good to understand how Luther understands the consequences of the punishment brought through God’s judgment. He observes that the church of his day and the government are not untouched by these consequences. For the Western church is cut off from the East, and the German nation is slowly being taken by the Turks. “Thus we also are punished by the confusion of languages, and ever since Babel was built all kingdoms have felt this plague.”#

Unfortunately, the Babel account is often overlooked when people refer to the primeval account. The juicy bits involve bringing order out of chaos, and creating material things from nothing. People rarely want to hear about the time some folks tried to build a tower but couldn’t because God confused them. That story is  just for children. While on the surface it may seem like just an ancient, prescientific etiology of language, there is more going on in the text than many realize. Satirical jabs at ruling powerhouses, the undoing of creation by man. We have seen again, the efforts that God goes through in trying to re-establish His relationship with us. Perhaps the greatest part is that you can now tell your kids the beautiful story of Babel.

Opere Citato

Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Brueggermann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

   

Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale, 1967.

Pelikan, Jaroslav and Daniel E. Poellot, eds. Lectures on Genesis Chapters 6-14, vol. 5 of Luther’s Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960.

Book Review: Peter Enns, Inspiration & Incarnation

In his book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament, Peter Enns addresses three primary questions that evangelical circles concern themselves with: the historicity of the primeval account, the concern of biblical contradiction, and the New Testament author’s use of the Old. From the outset, Enns states, “I want to contribute to a growing opinion that what is needed is to move beyond both sides by thinking of better ways to account for some of the data, while at the same time having a vibrant, positive view of Scripture as God’s word.” An effort that I feel he accomplishes. The problem I face is critically interacting with what Enns says, without repeating everything the way he says it. Thus I will employ the critique provided by G.K. Beale, and explain why this approach to raising objections is misguided. However, since this paper is being written for a class concerned with the Pentateuch and given the lack of space I am afforded, I will limit my observations to Enns’ first chapter on the historicity of the Old Testament.

Enns is ultimately concerned with helping evangelicals understand some of the difficulties that come with reading the Old Testament. The book is divided into three sections dealing with three primary questions. First, Enns explains why so much of the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, looks so similar to other documents that come from the Ancient Near East. His concern in digging deeper on this issue is that many evangelicals understand that for Scripture to be Holy or inspired, it must be unique. Enns argues that what the Old Testament is saying is closely linked to how it is being said. Second, Enns labels as diversity, what look like contradictions to others. Claiming the way these various occurrences operate cannot be pigeon holed or merely swept under the rug, Enns argues that in those cases where the Bible seems to be saying two opposing things, one must understand that, “the question is not whether they are correct, but when.”# The author points out that two opposing statements can both be correct, perhaps not in the same sense at the same time, but there are various times when either could be true. Third, the author focuses on how the New Testament writers sometimes seem as though they are misrepresenting the Old Testament. It sometimes seems out of place for the New Testament writers to take the Old Testament so far out of context. However, Enns argues that what many of the writers are doing here is utilizing the ambiguity of language to draw out profound theological statements about what God has done. Doing such a thing with the Old Testament witness does not mean that the interpretation now stands on weak ground, rather the referred passage now has a deeper more profound meaning.

Enns is offering us responses to common contemporary questions that have more often than not been answered by brash drastic arguments or dismissal. Many of these alternative responses that Enns provides appear to be fuller arguments than what have been commonly offered. Rather than the Hodgian hermeneutic of plain text reading which assumes the necessity of historical veracity of the text and leads many to immature understandings of the Scriptural witness, Enns offers us an incarnational hermeneutic that is biblically consistent with the incarnation of Christ. The Hodgian explanation of such issues that Enns addresses look like this: there must have been an historical Adam because the Bible is true, there are no inconsistencies in Scripture because God’s revelation is perfect, the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament is sometimes different than what we would expect because they were inspired and we are sinful. In the end, these are not really answers at all but ways of shirking the responsibility of ripened exegesis.

    Enns’ underlying argument is that reading the Old Testament through an incarnational lens is more attune with who we know God to be. Since God chose to save us through human means, it would be safe to say that Christ would also choose to relay the news of that salvation to us through human means as well. While it is impossible to read the Bible free of objective opinion, it is important to make sure we are not shoe-horning Scripture into a 21st century modern interpretation. We often take the limited witness of Scripture and derive modern day answers for modern day questions, which is a desperately poor way of reading Scripture. It is as though we expect a microwave to keep our food cold, or a bricklayer to install our cabinets.
    I am much more willing to accept Enns’ thesis, if only because I came to the table with a broad understanding of these types of arguments. Some of the things He said are bold and tricky points to make, especially in Peter Enns’ position at a neo-conservative school such as Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught at the time of the book’s publication. Since then Enns has been suspended and fired for the content in this book. Such action is perhaps an indication of what is at stake, or of some people’s reaction, regardless of how over dramatized said action is, when people feel backed into an intellectual corner. Although, this is not a paper on Peter Enns but on his book. Since I would be in agreement with what he says already, I will solicit the help of Enns’ critics in understanding the implications of what Enns is saying for the neo-conservative G.K. Beale.

Following the publication of the book, the response of the evangelical academic community was drastic, pop criticism was ruthlessly biased and scholarly reaction was concerning. One such example of the latter is voiced in G.K. Beale’s article Myth, History, and Inspiration: A review article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. In his article, Beale makes it quite quite clear that he is concerned with whether or not Enns believes that the biblical witness refers to historical events. In a sense, Beale circumvents what Enns is trying to say by forcing Enns to answer what he is not trying to answer. Enns is not concerned with the question, is it true? But, rather how is it true? Despite the fact that Beale recognizes what Enns is saying, Beale continues to force Enns’ response onto uncovered ground.

It appears fairly clear that the distinction between the ANE mythical accounts of creation and the flood and those of the Genesis accounts is not in the former containing non-history and the latter representing reliable historical events, but the difference is to highlight the biblical God as true in contrast to the false ANE gods.#

This is precisely why I agree with Enns. Our concern in biblical scholarship is not to force theological propositions onto the text, molesting it for our own purposes, rather it is to stand in what the text is stating and respond theologically as honestly as we can. Beale seems to be more concerned with upholding evangelical doctrine and reading Scripture through the lens of established man made assumptions about the text, than he is about what Scripture is trying to say and why.
    I am far more concerned with understanding what the Old Testament has to say than I am concerned with understanding it through the lens of evangelicalism. Enns is offering us a hermeneutic that does just this. While Beale’s concern of what the implications of Enns’ argument has on important questions regarding such things as the resurrection, this seems to me to be a distracted concern. If I were to be having a conversation with a friend about my fiance but my friend was more concerned about whether the colour of a particular bicycle was blue or red, this would be not only frustrating but puzzling. What relationship does my view of my fiance have on the colour of a bicycle? This is the confusing reality of what Beale is saying. Enns makes no comment on the historical veracity of the resurrection, in the same sense that I am implying no concern for the colour of the bike.
    In the same way, if I make a statement about my fiance regarding whether she is beautiful like the sun rise, it would not be fair to my statement if the argument derived from me was that the sun rises. This is why I am convinced by Enns’ argument regarding what questions the Pentateuch is attempting to answer. Furthermore, I find Enns’ argument to be convincing because when we as Christians believe through faith that the resurrection was a historical event, we affirm the truth of what Genesis is saying, because we find that the way in which God has continued to act in history through Christ is consistent with the knowledge we derive from the creation account. That is if we accept that knowledge from the basis of what Enns is saying.
    God is different than how the surrounding ANE cultures understand him, which when we see in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ is true. If our concern of the primeval Genesis account is whether or not it depicts historical accounts, what does this tell us about Christ? Or even, what does Christ tell us about the historicity of Adam? Nothing.
    Perhaps what is most disconcerting about the reaction of the evangelical community to Enns’ book is that it reveals just how immature and scared many in the evangelical community are of honest readings of Scripture. It is unfortunate that people like Enns fall subject to the fear of evangelical institutions such as Westminster Theological Seminary. Regardless of how some people react, it doesn’t change reality, a reality that Enns reminds us of, that the beauty of the Scriptural witness is that it speaks to humanity in a way that we can understand. It speaks to us in a way that is incarnational, just as Christ became incarnate by becoming human, so too does God’s revelation come to us in human ways.

Opere Citato

Beale, Gregory K. "Myth, history, and inspiration: a review article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 1, 2006): 287-312.

Book Review: Roger Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming

 

-->

            Although rather limited in scope, Roger Olson has written a helpful introduction for initiating a conversation between conservative and postconservative evangelicals.  Initially, the mere fact that the author immediately limits the conversation to evangelicals makes the reader doubt the relevance of the book for herself.  Why would someone want to limit a conversation on theology to evangelicalism?  However, as the conversation is unpacked and divulged, the reader comes to understand that the conversation is indeed relevant and important, even if only in a sense to understand the contemporary conversation.  Therefore, we will begin our response by coming to an understanding of what the book actually says, then we will move to provide personal observations of what Olson is arguing for, finally we will discuss whether or not Olson is truly convincing in his argument.

            Of course the title of the book is a telling description of the position that Olson takes, although perhaps not for the reasons expected.  His basic thesis is that if evangelical theology is going to be true to the instructive orientating roots laid down by the early reformers, theology needs to be an ongoing task lead by the Holy Spirit and established from Scripture.  Obviously, Olson is not proposing such silly notions as the radical reformers suggest in doing away with tradition entirely, but to hold tradition, a secondary human established tradition as truly that, secondary.  Throughout the book Olson continues to reflect on the concerning direction conservative evangelicals have taken, that they have ultimately made reformed theology a static finalized issue and that the task of modern theologians, in the mind of conservatives, is to reestablish propositional doctrine decided upon by the original reformers, a notion that would be antithetical to those original reformed theologians.

            Olson explores those characteristics by which conservative evangelical theologians are distinguished, and provides constructive alternatives that seem to be more in tune with historical evangelical thought.  Olson begins by explaining the roots of the evangelical movement mainly deriving from two streams of thought, Pietism and Puritanism.  The movement finds itself coming from these two different, but not mutually exclusive approaches and concepts of Christianity, both being responses to the Enlightenment of the 18^th century.  One is rooted in opposition to the empiricism of enlightenment approach by revisiting the transformational imperative in response to the Gospel of Christ, the other being a response of submission to a basic propositional, empirical approach to truth.  While in essence, both responses are brought about by an earnest desire to reorient Christianity to the person of Christ as communicated through the Gospel in Scripture, modern evangelicalism finds itself almost enslaved to the latter totalitarian like position while shying away from the former, a disservice that brings evangelicalism focusing more on the doctrinal development of the church (or lack thereof), instead of establishing doctrine for the furthering of transformation through relationship with this God man Jesus.  As an alternative, Olson proposes the movement of postconservative evangelical thought which seeks to reorient the evangelical church towards a more balanced restatement of the reformed tradition by grafting the Pietist concept of transformation through relation back onto the branch of evangelical thought.  If we understand the evangelical movement as a tree that has two natures, the one side is mostly coniferous in nature with its static preserving attributes of upholding its characteristics throughout all seasons being the puritanical side.  Olson encourages the evangelical movement to re-graft a deciduous branch, one that constantly changes and adapts to the seasons it finds itself in.  Without both qualities and natures of the evangelical movement, it simply ceases to become the evangelical movement and instead is merely Puritanism.

            Throughout the book, Olson provides various ways in which conservative evangelicals have typically approached the task of the church.  He begins by explaining how conservatives see Scripture as primarily a propositional document critical for a Christian to properly understand their faith, a notion introduced by the Charles Hodge who was influenced by Scottish philosophical empiricism.  Hodge’s continuation of this philosophical notion was to insist that everything in the Bible was true and must therefore be taken literally.  This has become a type of flagship for some evangelicals.  Since the Bible is everything for an evangelical, and everything in the Bible is literal, it follows that if you do not believe every word in the Bible is literal, you are not a Christian, or at least, you are not an evangelical.  What follows from this basic assumption is that theology then becomes a mere statement of what the Bible says, in that there is no critical thought needed to understand what the passages are saying.  There also comes a natural defense against any thought contrary to empirical truth, resulting in an orthodoxy that is rigid and exclusive.  The Bible becomes that which holds the information needed to be known for proper indoctrination to occur.  The way things have always been done become the only way things should be done, or at least the new way things have always been done since the enlightenment.  This is a rather perturbing picture that is painted by Olson especially if taken to mean that one must throw out entirely this approach to “The Way”.  It cannot be reiterated enough that this is not what Olson is saying.  Rather, that within these approaches there lays a truly legitimate way of thinking of Christian life and purpose if it is supplemented not with philosophical principals but with Pietistic realities, those realities that have shaped the church for many centuries.

            Instead of dismissing entirely the conservative approach to these various concerns, Olson supplements the evangelical mind with a call to understanding the essence of Christianity as the Bible, but not by flogging Scripture for empirical scientific data and propositional statements, rather by understanding the transformational realities of the narrative nature of Scripture.  From this fountainhead, Olson unpacks the Postconservative approach to theology.  At its most rudimentary, Postconservative evangelical theology suggests that the work of reformed theology is a never ending task, and that conservative evangelicals have become too tied down by the tradition and the doctrine that has resulted from the Reformation.  Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, Olson suggests that we reaffirm the secondary influence of tradition, while returning to an understanding of Scripture as primary through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  This allows evangelical theology to break free from the constraints of the type of rigidity doctrinal orthodoxy has found itself in, and engage with the surrounding culture in new and formative ways such as in the issue of divine gender.  All of these directional suggestions are helpful to the reader even if only to sketch out the contemporary discussion.  However, there are a number of observations that came to mind throughout the reading of the book that are not necessarily particularly crucial to Olson’s point, but may be helpful to mention. 

First, although Olson is offering a theological position that is drastically different from that of conservative evangelicals, his approach does not seem to be so different.  In fact, it is one of the more perturbing aspects of the book, especially in the earlier chapters.  The way that the book sets out comes off as rather polemical and not in any way that is benefiting Olson.  The way that Olson establishes the boundaries of each side sets up a definitive firing line that does more to alienate those who appreciate the authors and theologians mentioned on the opposed conservative side and exclude those who might find themselves on the more Postconservative side of the coin.  It appears as if Olson is in fact not interested in calling the evangelical community to correction at all but rather continuing to drive the wedge between conservatives and the rest of the believing community of Christ.  William Placher's writing style, sets a fairly good example of mending the wounds while tearing down the fence instead of Olson’s approach of tearing through wounds and building fences higher.  For example, in his introduction, Olson mentions that “the task of evangelical theologians is to correct those who misunderstand and misrepresent our label; it is not to give up.”[1]  Why?  Why does this have to be a part of the task of evangelical theology?  If Olson is truly hoping to encourage fruitful discussion and beneficial interaction, perhaps his method is not the best way to go about it.  The means is the message, as they say.

Second, along with Olson’s polemical approach to theology comes a rather typical mindset of people offering postmodern alternatives to problems, what I will refer to as a white knight complex.  The concept is simple enough and rather easy to find, it is when someone offers a solution to a problem in a fashion that makes them look as though they are riding onto the scene and finally putting an end to all the ridiculousness that has transpired while the world was waiting for them to come to realization.  Obviously, this is a rather facetious caricature of the problem, and Olson is nowhere near to being so overt about his offered observations on the matter however, what Olson is saying is not so drastically different from what a lot of people were saying well before he came on the scene.  That is, the point of the gospel is not to be found in the doctrines established by men but in the Scriptures, which are impossible to interpret exhaustively.  Almost remind you of the reformation does it not?

Third, there seems to be confusion, even if only slight, of orthodox and reformed theology.  It appears as though Olson uses the two terms interchangeably, which can lead to a muddying of the two very different concepts.  There were a few times when I couldn’t distinguish what he actually meant.  “That is, if being evangelical necessarily includes being orthodox, how can orthodoxy itself be reformed by evangelicals?”[2]  “… The burden of Carson’s book, … is to preserve and protect the cognitive doctrinal content of historical evangelicalism - evangelical orthodoxy.”[3]  “They tend to forget that there was authentic Christianity before there was orthodoxy.  And orthodoxy changes.”[4]  Continuing to provide examples would be a moot.  If Olson really is referring to Orthodoxy in its true sense being the creedal confessions coming out of the end of post apostolic period and being a broad summation of what Christians generally believe, then he will have a harder battle to be picking than perhaps he realizes.  However, if he is only referring to the reformed small ‘o’ orthodoxy, then perhaps he has a point.  In his third chapter he does have a conversation about paleo-orthodoxy, which is a start, but it is not the whole of the issue.  It is one thing to argue against the idea that all important theological topics have been settled in the first few ecumenical councils, it is another thing to argue against the concepts that were established in those councils themselves.  In the council of Nicea, it became acknowledged that Jesus really did have two natures; he was both divine and human.  Although I do not think that Olson is trying to argue against these types of established dogmas, rather he is establishing a call to continue the task of theology.  Perhaps part of my unrest comes with the ambiguity he wields when he says things like “‘Respect for the past does not require closed-mindedness’ to future corrections and reformulations.”[5] Or, “New situations call for new steps and dialogue and action.”[6]  It makes me uncomfortable, his suggesting reform and change when I do not know what he is intending to reform and change.  If he were speaking out of a medieval theological context (forgive the anachronism), he would simply be labeled as a heretic since in those days, new theological ideas were simply heretical, especially when involving points already established, such as the duality of Christ’s nature.  Perhaps this merely reflects my tendencies toward a ‘paleo-orthodoxical’ understanding of theology, but I think I would be less skeptical if Olson did not leave the summation of his arguments to the very end of the book.

Finally, I have a bit of a confession to make, the Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada, which is the conference I associate with, has its roots in pietism.  However, not in the vein of pietism associated with John Wesley, but in the German pietism of Philipp Spener and August Francke.  Much of what Olson discusses are ideas already held by the Covenant church, probably due to the lack of influence of Puritanism in our vein of evangelicalism.  When I first began to read the book, the posture Olson was taking towards the debunking of more traditional evangelical approaches of theological discussion were borderline offensive.  As I read on however, I realized that much of what he was meaning to convey was actually not as offensive as I had originally thought.  In fact I found myself with every chapter coming to appreciate the things he said.  What Olson is suggesting, I began to realize, is in fact what the original Pietists suggested in Germany.  After the reformation, the Lutheran church quickly became statically concerned with upholding right Lutheran doctrine; church authorities forgot their recent escape from the magisterial iron grip of the unreformed Catholic Church.  The concern with the freedom in the church being led by the Spirit switched to the shackles of confessional Lutheranism in an attempt to crystallize the beliefs of the ‘one true church’.  Spener and Francke shepherded a vein of the German church through a rather complicated generational shift from Lutheran orthodoxy to transformational pietism.  Even so, this shift is not something new, even for the pietistic church of Germany and Scandanavia; this type of amendment has been going on since the Pharisees.  It is not simply a matter of right understanding, but about an encounter with the creator of the universe come in the man Jesus the Nazarene.  As ridiculous as it sounds, the words of princess Leia come to mind, “The more you tighten your grip, … the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”[7]  The more aggressive the attempt to solidify and systematize the beliefs of the church into immovable dead doctrine, the further away the church gets from being the church.  Emphases switch from God to man, from being formed by the life of Christ to knowing about the life of Christ, from the proclamation of freedom to the pronouncement of judgment.

When it comes down to it, Olson does a good job of explaining the position of the postconservative theological movement.  He does a good job of falling in line with those who have come before him, who have paved the way for the church to return to the call Christ has issued.  He has done an adequate job of articulating what I have been thinking for the past couple of years.[8]  Even if I am not convinced by his particular arguments, I stand in agreement with him on a number of issues.

            In conclusion, although Olson’s style of argument is rather conservative in method, his argument stands in unison with many who have come before him.  Olson in and of himself is not the savior of Christian theology, Jesus is.  I disagree with his decision to subvert orthodoxy by equating it with reformed theology, I think there is more value in holding to a living orthodoxy than what he presents.  Although he seems to confuse some of the topics, I non-the-less agree with the trajectory of his thesis.  I hope that the rest of the postconservative community follows him in focusing some of their energy on developing fruitful discussion on pietism and the influence it has had in the life of the church.

Opere Citato

International Movie Database, Memorable Quotes for Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope quote page, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt=qt0440688 [accessed September 24, 2012].

Olson, Roger.  Reformed and Always reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007.

---

[1] Roger Olson, Reformed and Always reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007], 14.

[2] Ibid., 39.

[3] Ibid., 72.

[4] Ibid., 94.

[5] Ibid., 110.

[6] Ibid., 120.

[7] International Movie Database, Memorable Quotes for Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope quote page, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt=qt0440688 [accessed September 24, 2012].

[8] It is important for me to note that I am not placing any value on my personal opinion regarding the topics Olson is discussing, he is not correct on the matter because I agree.  Rather, I am extending appreciation for Olson’s ability to articulate what has been on my mind the past little while.

A New Chapter

      I have returned!  No, not from the dead, but to school.  I have begun the ancient rite of passage, the journey through seminary.  In the hopes of generating conversation and opening myself up to critique, I have decided to post my papers here for everyone who does and does not want to read them.  Please, be gentle, my ego is fragile.