ATI Vol2 No1 PDF

AMERICAN
THEOLOGICAL
INQUIRY
A BIANNUAL JOURNAL
OF
Theology, Culture & History
A p o s t o l o r u m , N i c n o ,
Q u i c u n q u e , C h a l c e d o n e n s e
Volume 2, No. 1
MINNEAPOLIS
2009.
AMERICAN THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY
A Biannual Journal
of
Theology, Culture & History
ISBN: 978-1-60608-459-5 (Print)

ISSN: 1941-7624 (Online)
5729 France Avenue South

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410
General Editor
Gannon Murphy, PhD
Associate Editor
Stephen Patrick, PhD
Book Reviews Editor

Ken Deusterman, MA
PURPOSE STATEMENT
To provide an inter-tradition forum for scholars who affirm the historic Ecumenical Creeds
of Christendom to constructively communicate contemporary theologies, developments,
ideas, commentaries, and insights pertaining to theology, culture, and history toward
reforming and elevating Western Christianity. American Theological Inquiry (ATI) seeks a
critical function as much or more so as a quasi-ecumenical one. The purpose is not to erase
or weaken the distinctives of the various ecclesial traditions, but to widen the dialogue and
increase inter-tradition understanding while mutually affirming Christs power to transform
culture and the importance of strengthening Western Christianity with special reference to
Her historic roots.
ABOUT
ATI was formed in 2007 by Drs. Gannon Murphy (PhD, Univ. Wales, Lampeter
Theology; Presbyterian/Reformed) and Stephen Patrick (PhD, Univ. IllinoisPhilosophy;
Eastern Orthodox) to open up space for Christian scholars who affirm the Ecumenical
Creeds to contribute research throughout the broader Christian scholarly community in
America and the West broadly.
Subscriptions. A subscription is not needed to access ATI. Each issue is available free of
charge in a PDF format by accessing http://www.atijournal.org/. Print copies are available
for purchase from Wipf and Stock Publishers through one of the following means:
-i-
Online: www.wipfandstock.com
Email: orders [at] wipfandstock [dot] com
Fax: 541-344-1506
Phone: 541-344-1528
Be sure to specify the volume and issue number with your order.
Distribution. ATI maintains an email distribution list of over 4400 Christian scholars,
clergy, and other interested parties primarily in the U.S. and U.K. Those on ATIs
distribution list receive notification of new issues and a biannual communiqu. To be added
to ATIs distribution list, please send an email to:
distribution-list [at] atijournal [dot] org.
Manuscript submissions should be addressed to the General Editor. Emailed submissions

are acceptable (gmurphy [at] atijournal [dot] org). ATI is open to diverse submissions
concerning theology, culture, and history from the perspective of historic, creedal
Christianity. Particular topics of interest, however, generally include:
Theology (Biblical, philosophical, historical, and systematic).

Engagement with the Patristical literature.
Theological, cultural, philosophical, and ecclesial trends in the Western world.
Perspectives on history/historical events from an orthodox viewpoint.
Cultural/philosophical apologetics.
Book reviews should be submitted to: bookreviews [at] atijournal [dot] org
Requirements. Submissions should conform to the following standards:

1. Include your full name, title and/or affiliation, and a brief (i.e., one sentence) statement
affirming the Ecumenical Creeds of Christendom (Apostles, Athanasian, Nicno-
Constantinopolitan, Chalcedonian). Exceptions are permissible with reference to the
filioque clauses and Athanasian anathemas.
2. The work has not been submitted elsewhere, or, permissory documentation is provided
by the previous publisher indicating approval for publication in ATI.
5. Submit MSS or book reviews in a Microsoft Word, RTF, or text format.
Volume 2, No. 1., January 15, 2009

Copyright American Theological Inquiry, All Rights Reserved
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
- ii -
BOOK PROPOSAL: CALL FOR PAPERS
Proposed Title
Radical Religion: Christianity and Contemporary Scholarship
Editor
Dr. Ryan McIlhenny, PhD
Assistant Professor of History
Providence Christian College
Chapter Submissions
Seeking submissions from liberal arts scholars on issues related to new and even radical ways
of re-conceptualizing Christian doctrine and practice in higher education. The goal is to offer
an honest and constructive critique of the epistemological narrowness of modernism in the
authors chosen discipline and, more specifically, to appreciate the ways in which the
postmodern condition, broadly understood, has aided in ushering in a kind of revival of
Christian theology. On a related note, the editor is interested in those who employ non-
traditional methods and concepts as they argue for traditional beliefs. If enough papers are
submitted that fit with the intent of the project, the editor will then solicit the proposal to a
select number of publishers. Papers that are completed or have been published elsewhere,
therefore, will expedite the process. Submissions are restricted to professional academics
(e.g., university and college professors, PhD holders, and ABD graduate students) who are
professing Christians.
For those interested please send a 200-300 word abstract and CV to Dr. Ryan McIlhenny at
mcilhenny@providencecc.net.
AMERICAN THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY
January 15, 2009
Volume 2, No. 1.
CONTENTS
FROM THE EDITOR 1
PATRISTICAL READING 3
Homily On Ephesians, I:11-14
St. John Chrysostom
ARTICLES
THE THEOLOGY OF GERALD OCOLLINS AND POSTMODERNISM 11
Craig Baron
LATE HAVE I LEFT THEE: A REFLECTION ON AUGUSTINE THE 27
MANICHEE AND THE LOGIC OF BELIEF ADOPTION
Charles Natoli
JESUS ON THE BIG SCREEN 41
Stephen Nichols
LUTHERAN PURITANISM? ADIAPHORA IN LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY 61
AND POSSIBLE COMMONALITIES IN REFORMED ORTHODOXY
Daniel Hyde
A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME: ATTEMPTS AT CLASSIFYING NORTH 85
AMERICAN PROTESTANT WORSHIP
Lester Ruth
TWIN PARABLES OF STEWARDSHIP IN LUKE 105
J. Lyle Story
DEATH, KILLING AND PERSONAL IDENTITY 121
Todd Bindig
BOOK REVIEWS
Philippe Sellier. Port-Royal et la littrature, Vol. II. 133
Charles Natoli
John R. Muether. Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman. 136
Ryan McIlhenny
- vii -
BOOK REVIEWS (con)
Bryan Spinks (ed.). The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Trinity, Christology, 140
and Liturgical Theology.
James R. A. Merrick
Edwin Christiaan van Driel. Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian 141
Christology.
Myk Habets
Charles Natoli. Fire in the Dark: Essays on Pascals Penses and Provinciales. 146
Trent Dougherty
Karl Barth; Kurt Johanson (ed.); Christopher Asprey (trans). The Word in This 148
World: Two Sermons by Karl Barth.
Benjamin Myers
Timothy George (ed). God the Holy Trinity: Reflections on Christian Faith and 149
Practice.
Benjamin Myers
Christopher Hitchens; Douglas Wilson. Is Christianity Good for the World? 151
Ian Clary
D. A. Carson. Becoming Conversant With The Emerging Church: Understanding a 153
Movement and Its Implications.
Tim Challies
Stephen Nichols. Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to 156
The Passion of the Christ.
Tim Challies
David Wells. The Courage To Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents 157
in the Postmodern World.
Tim Challies
Thomas Fowler; Daniel Kuebler. The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of 159
Competing Theories.
Tim Challies
BOOK NOTES AND COMMENTS 165
THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM 173
- viii -

American Theological Inquiry
FROM THE EDITOR1

The world is my idea. Or so the saying goes, made famous by the eminent Doctor of
Grumpiness, Arthur Schopenhauer. From an historic Christian standpoint, Schopenhauer is
at least a third right. The world is an idea. But it is neither Schopenhauers, nor is it merely
an idea. Christian tradition teaches us that the world is a living idea, borne of the mind of
God. It is Gods idea that from one blood every nation of men [dwells] on all the face of
the earth, and [have] determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their
dwellings (Acts 17:26, NKJV). This is the living idea which we all inhabitno less a reality
for being an idea. Surely quite the opposite. That it is Gods idea changes everything. Were
now presented with the mysterious reality of an idea which we strain to penetrate.
What do we learn from our many books? Reading them, re-reading them, making them?
We cannot avoid systematization. So be it. We cannot seem to disconstitute ourselves such
that we (pace Averroes) can come to a place where we embrace in our hearts that which the
powers of our intellect impel us to explode. That is, unless madness to you is a comfortable
wool suit.
Paradox, mystery, obscurityyes; antinomy, contradiction, unqualified antipode, the
mutually exclusiveno. This might make it seem, contra Paul, that we do not consciously
cede how dark a glass it is indeed through which we peer. But this is one thing we actually
know with great surety. I must confess to having reached a point where I am all too ready to
engage in the systematic quest for all manner of things reasonably quantifiable and
philosophically either/or. But I must also admit my own unvarnished failure of the
imagination beneath the frightful weight of the mystery of experience. To put it succinctly,
barring a personal modus vivendi of faith continually seeking understanding, I havent got a
clue how to live. It seems to me that all theists should suffer a similar sort of doxastic
myopia and share in the collective bafflement of how anyone should live under the sun, as
Qoheleth regularly puts it, carrying merrily on without a fig of care for the Deity. Life is a
choice, it seems, between outer darkness and the frightful light of mystery.
Our goal at ATI continues to be to provide a cross-tradition forum through which the
great mystery of the Christian Hope might shine ever brighter. Beyond endless, flaccid
theoriaabsent the nepsis and praxis of our oft-forgotten patristic exemplarswe seek a
Christian reflection of Hope amidst the pivotal issues of our time that is at once calculatedly
informative, watchful, practical, transforming. Providing a philosophic critique of the
contemporary cultural milieu or of the growing tide of secularist, nay pagan2, thinking with
1 Gannon Murphy, PhD, is General Editor of American Theological Inquiry and the author of
Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality Against Open Theism

(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006).
2 Recent surveys indicate that as many as 64% of Americans not only believe in aliens, but believe
they have contacted (or abducted) us earthlingsand continue to do so at will. About as many believe
that our principal hope for future salvation may lie only within the province of NASA and its lofty
technological powers to create for us distant, habitable, planetary land with a manmade atmosphere. If
these arent examples of a rampant and deeply-entrenched pagan mythology, then nothing else in
-1-
its attendant (and often militant) philosophical materialism and pantheon of new age
mythologies can only go so far. We must also be able to integrate the undying, timeless
insights of the historic Christian faith into our daily lives to help us navigate through the
increasingly stormy cultural sea on which were set.
We do well to cultivate in ourselves a fully lived-out triad of wisdom, integrity, and truth.
Throughout the course of this, our third issue, our contributors once again draw upon the
insights of some of the finest thinkers God has condescended to bless us with. These
thinkers hail from both past and present and from around the world, andthough theyre
certainly not the only sources of great wisdomthey form here a unified phalanx of shining
lights making clearer our paths toward the triadic paradigm with Hope as its center and telos.
Subsumed along this path is an eye to better understanding ourselves, our world, and the
purpose for which we are createdto know and love God, to glorify Him, to celebrate His
overflowing blessings with gladness (however easily this is missed amidst our growing
morass of cultural kitsch and demented gimcrack, all ready-packed for public consumption
in distracting, pretty boxes). Fie on that! I can hear Kierkegaard say. There is Hope to be
had. It is not the easy road. But it is the only one that provides a room, contra Sartre, with
an Exit.
Pascal, we may well recall, regarded us as, the glory and scum of the universe.3 We are
glorious when we seek the veridical light of Hope, yet wretched at every instance we show
that Hope our defiant backsides. We first come to know Glory only when we reckon plainly
with our own unattractive misery. The quest for knowledge has a twofold root. One, the
root of despair and death, the other the root of Hope and life. Each must choose.
To that end, there is no better place to turn than with the following Patristical selection
from the eminent St. John Chrysostom. The glass through which Chrysostom himself
gazed, some 1600 years ago, seems uncannily less darkened than our own. While we marvel,
as Chrysostom did, at the Many [who are] frequently raising edifices that glisten with pillars
and costly marbles we wonder Who this is, in the midst of our lofty schemes, that keeps
reminding us of the creeping emptiness that the best of our schemes and crafts cannot fill
up. And yet, indeed, it is the same One who worketh all things. More than a spot of
darkness fades in the looking glass if we can bring ourselves to embrace this particular
paradox.
history qualifies. And if we are called by the Gospel to enjoin a certain perpendicularity of foolishness
against each present and passing zeitgeist (I Cor 1), this is going to a high and difficult charge indeed in
a 21st century, demon-haunted land of space cooties.
3 Blaise Pascal, Penses, 434.
-2-
PATRISTICAL READING
HOMILY ON EPHESIANS, I:11-14
St. John Chrysostom 1
In whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose
of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will.
Paul earnestly endeavors on all occasions to display the unspeakable loving-kindness of
God towards us, to the utmost of his power. For that it is impossible to do so adequately,
hear his own words. O! the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God;
how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past tracing out. (Rom. xi. 33.) Still,
notwithstanding, so far as it is possible, he does display it. What then is this which he is
saying; In whom also we were made a heritage, being predestinated? Above he used the
word, He chose us; here he saith, we were made a heritage. But inasmuch as a lot is a
matter of chance, not of deliberate choice, nor of virtue, (for it is closely allied to ignorance
and accident, and oftentimes passing over the virtuous, brings forward the worthless into
notice,) observe how he corrects this very point: having been foreordained, saith he,
according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things. That is to say, not merely have
we been made a heritage, as, again, we have not merely been chosen, (for it is God who
chooses,) and so neither have we merely been allotted, (for it is God who allots,) but it is
according to a purpose. This is what he says also in the Epistle to the Romans, (Rom. viii.
28-30.) To them that are called according to His purpose; and whom He called, them He
also justified, and whom He justified, them he also glorified. Having first used the
expression, to them that are called according to a purpose, and at the same time wishing to
declare their privilege compared with the rest of mankind, he speaks also of inheritance by
lot, yet so as not to divest them of free will. That point then, which more properly belongs
to happy fortune, is the very point he insists upon. For this inheritance by lot depends not
on virtue, but, as one might say, on fortuitous circumstances. It is as though he had said, lots
were cast, and He hath chosen us; but the whole is of deliberate choice. Men predestinated,
that is to say, having chosen them to Himself, He hath separated. He saw us, as it were,
chosen by lot before we were born. For marvelous is the foreknowledge of God, and
acquainted with all things before their beginning.
But mark now how on all occasions he takes pains to point out, that it is not the result of
any change of purpose, but that these matters had been thus modeled from the very first, so
that we are in no wise inferior to the Jews in this respect; and how, in consequence, he does
everything with this view. How then is it that Christ Himself saith, I was not sent, but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel? (Mat. xv. 24.) And said again to his disciples, Go not
1 St. John Chrysostom (c. 347407) is one of the great Greek Fathers of the Church. After
studying the Greek classics in Antioch, he became an anchorite monk (374), a deacon (c. 381) and a
priest (386). For 12 years he indefatigably preached in the Antiochene cathedral during the reign of
Flavian. In 398, he was made patriarch of Constantinople, during which time he spoke out strenuously,
often at great personal risk, against the moral laxity of both the church hierarchy and royalty. St. John
died while in exile.
-3-
into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans. (Mat. x. 5.) And
Paul again himself says, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to
you. Seeing ye thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to
the Gentiles. (Acts xiii. 46.) These expressions, I say, are used with this design, that no one
may suppose that this work came to pass incidentally only. According to the purpose, he
says, of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will. That is to say, He had
no after workings; having modeled all things from the very first, thus he leads forward all
things according to the counsel of His will. So that it was not merely because the Jews did
not listen that He called the Gentiles, nor was it of mere necessity, nor was it on any
inducement arising from them.
Ver. 12, 13. To the end that we should be unto the praise of His glory, we who had
before hoped in Christ. In whom ye also having heard the word of the truth, the Gospel of
your salvation.
That is to say, through whom. Observe how he on all occasions speaks of Christ, as the
Author of all things, and in no case gives Him the title of a subordinate agent, or a minister.
And so again, elsewhere, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, he says, that God, having of old
time spoken unto the Fathers in the prophets, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us
in His Son, (Heb. i. 1.) that is through His Son.
The word of truth, he says, no longer that of the type, nor of the image.
The Gospel of your salvation. And well does he call it the Gospel of salvation,
intimating in the one word a contrast to the law, in the other, a contrast with punishment to
come. For what is the message, but the Gospel of salvation, which forbears to destroy those
that are worthy of destruction.
Ver. 14. In whom having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is an earnest of our inheritance.
Here again, the word sealed, is an indication of especial forecast. He does not speak of
our being predestinated only, nor of our being allotted, but further, of our being sealed. For
just as though one were to make those who should fall to his lot manifest, so also did God
separate them for believing, and sealed them for the allotment of the things to come.
You see how, in process of time, He makes them objects of wonder. So long as they
were in His foreknowledge, they were manifest to no one, but when they were sealed, they
became manifest, though not in the same way as we are; for they will be manifest except a
few. The Israelites also were sealed, but that was by circumcision, like the brutes and
reasonless creatures. We too are sealed, but it is as sons, with the Spirit.
But what is meant by, with the Spirit of promise? Doubtless it means that we have
received that Spirit according to promise. For there are two promises, the one by the
prophets, the other from the Son.
By the Prophets.Hearken to the words of Joel; I will pour out My spirit upon all
flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions, (Joel ii. 28.) And hearken again to the words of Christ;
-4-
But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be my
witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of
the earth. (Acts i. 8.) And truly, the Apostle means, He ought, as God, to have been
believed; however, he does not ground his affirmation upon this, but examines it like a case
where man is concerned, speaking much as he does in the Epistle to the Hebrews; (Heb. vi.
18.) where he says, That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie,
we may have a strong encouragement. Thus here also he makes the things already bestowed
a sure token of the promise of those which are yet to come. For this reason he further calls it
an earnest, (Cf. also 2 Cor. i. 22.) for an earnest is a part of the whole. He hath purchased
what we are most concerned in, our salvation; and hath given us an earnest in the mean
while. Why then did He not give the whole at once? Because neither have we, on our part,
done the whole of our work. We have believed. This is a beginning; and He too on His part
hath given an earnest. When we show our faith by our works, then He will add the rest. Nay,
more, He hath given yet another pledge, His own blood, and hath promised another still. In
the same way as in case of war between nation and nation they give hostages: just so hath
God also given His Son as a pledge of peace and solemn treaties, and, further, the Holy
Spirit also which is from Him. For they, that are indeed partakers of the Spirit, know that He
is the earnest of our inheritance. Such an one was Paul, who already had here a foretaste of
the blessings there. And this is why he was so eager, and yearned to be released from things
below, and groaned within himself. He transferred his whole mind thither, and saw
everything with different eyes. Thou hast no part in the reality, and therefore failest to
understand the description. Were we all partakers of the Spirit, as we ought to be partakers,
then should we behold Heaven, and the order of things that is there.
It is an earnest, however, of what? Of Ver. 14. The redemption of Gods own
possession.
For our absolute redemption takes place then. For now we have our life in the world, we
are liable to many human accidents, and are living amongst ungodly men. But our absolute
redemption will be then, when there shall be no sins, no human sufferings, when we shall
not be indiscriminately mixed with all kinds of people.
At present, however, there is but an earnest, because at present we are far distant from
these blessings. Yet is our citizenship not upon earth; even now we are out of the pale of the
things that are here below. Yes, we are sojourners even now.
Ver. 14. Unto the praise of His glory.
This he adds in immediate connection. And why? Because it would serve to give those
who heard it full assurance. Were it for our sake only, he means to say, that God did this,
there might be some room for misgiving. But if it be for His own sake, and in order to
display His goodness, he assigns, as a sort of witness, a reason why these things never
possibly could be otherwise. We find the same language everywhere applied to the case of
the Israelites. Do Thou this for us for Thy Names sake; (Ps. cix. 21.) and again, God
Himself said, I do it for Mine own sake; (Isa. xlviii. 11.) and so Moses, Do it, if for
nothing else, yet for the glory of Thy Name. This gives those who hear it full assurance; it
-5-
relieves them to be told, that whatever He promises, for His own goodness sake He will
most surely perform.
Moral. Let not the hearing, however, make us too much at our ease; for although He
doth it for His own sake, yet notwithstanding He requires a duty on our part. If He says,
Them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed, (1
Sam. ii. 30.) let us reflect that there is that which He requires of us also. True, it is the praise
of His glory to save those that are enemies, but those who, after being made friends,
continue His friends. So that if they were to return back to their former state of enmity, all
were vain and to no purpose. There is not another Baptism, nor is there a second
reconciliation again, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment which shall devour the
adversaries. (Heb. x. 27.) If we intend at the same time to be always at enmity with Him and
yet to claim forgiveness at His hand, we shall never cease to be at enmity, and to be wanton,
to grow in depravity, and to be blind to the Sun of Righteousness which has risen. Dost thou
not see the ray that shall open thine eyes? Render them then good and sound and
quicksighted. He hath showed thee the true light; if thou shunnest it, and runnest back again
into the darkness, what shall be thy excuse? What sort of allowance shall be made for thee?
None from that moment. For this is a mark of unspeakable enmity. When indeed thou
knewest not God, then if thou wert at enmity with Him, thou hadst, be it how it might,
some excuse. But when thou hast tasted the goodness and the honey, if thou again
abandonest them, and turnest to thine own vomit, what else art thou doing but bringing
forward evidence of excessive hatred and contempt? `Nay, thou wilt say, `but I am
constrained to it by nature. I love Christ indeed, but I am constrained by nature. If thou art
under the power and force of constraint, thou wilt have allowance made; but if thou yield
from indolence, not for a moment.
Now then, come, let us examine this very question, whether sins are the effect of force
and constraint, or of indolence and great carelessness. The law says, Thou shalt not kill.
What sort of force, what sort of violence, is there here? Violence indeed must one use to
force himself to kill, for who amongst us would as a matter of choice plunge his sword into
the throat of his neighbor, and stain his hand with blood? Not one. Thou seest then that, on
the contrary, sin is more properly matter of violence and constraint. For God hath implanted
in our nature a charm, which binds us to love one another. Every beast (it saith) loveth his
like, and every man loveth his neighbor. (Ecclus. xiii. 15.) Seest thou that we have from our
nature seeds which tend to virtue; whereas those of vice are contrary to nature? and if these
latter predominate, this is but an evidence of our exceeding indolence.
Again, what is adultery? What sort of necessity is there to bring us to this? Doubtless, it
will be said, the tyranny of lust. But why, tell me, should this be? What, is it not in every
ones power to have his own wife, and thus to put a stop to this tyranny? True, he will say,
but a sort of passion for my neighbors wife seizes hold on me. Here the question is no
longer one of necessity. Passion is no matter of necessity, no one loves of necessity, but of
deliberate choice and free will. Indulgence of nature, indeed, is perhaps matter of necessity,
but to love one woman rather than another is no matter of necessity. Nor is the point with
you natural desire, but vanity, and wantonness, and unbounded licentiousness. For which is
according to reason, that a man should have an espoused wife, and her the mother of his
-6-
children, or one not acknowledged? Know ye not that it is intimacy that breeds attachment.
This, therefore, is not the fault of nature. Blame not natural desire. Natural desire was
bestowed with a view to marriage; it was given with a view to the procreation of children,
not with a view to adultery and corruption. The laws, too, know how to make allowance for
those sins which are of necessity,or rather nothing is sin when it arises from necessity but
all sin rises from wantonness. God hath not so framed mans nature as that he should have
any necessity to sin, since were this the case, there would be no such thing as punishment.
We ourselves exact no account of things done of necessity and by constraint, much less
would God, so full of mercy and loving-kindness.
Again, what is stealing? is it matter of necessity? Yes, a man will say, because poverty
causes this. Poverty, however, rather compels us to work, not to steal. Poverty, therefore,
has in fact the contrary effect. Theft is the effect of idleness; whereas poverty produces
usually not idleness, but a love of labor. So that this sin is the effect of indolence, as you may
learn from hence. Which, I ask, is the more difficult, the more distasteful, to wander about at
night without sleep, to break open houses, and walk about in the dark, and to have ones life
in ones hand, and to be always prepared for murder, and to be shivering and dead with fear;
or to be attending to ones daily task, in full enjoyment of safety and security? This last is the
easier task; and it is because this is easier, that the majority practice it rather than the other.
Thou seest then that it is virtue which is according to nature, and vice which is against
nature, in the same way as disease and health are.
What, again, are falsehood and perjury? What necessity can they possibly imply? None
whatever, nor any compulsion; it is a matter to which we proceed voluntarily. We are
distrusted, it will be said. True, distrusted we are, because we choose it. For we might, if we
would, be trusted more upon our character, than upon our oath. Why, tell me, is it that we
do not trust some, no, not on their oath, whilst we deem others trustworthy even
independently of oaths. Seest thou that there is no need of oaths in any case? `When such an
one speaks, we say, `I believe him, even without any oath, but thee, no, not with thy oaths.
Thus then an oath is unnecessary; and is in fact an evidence rather of distrust than of
confidence. For where a man is over ready to take his oath, he does not leave us to entertain
any great idea of his scrupulousness. So that the man who is most constant in his use of
oaths, has on no occasion any necessity for using one, and he who never uses one on any
occasion, has in himself the full benefit of its use. Someone says there is a necessity for an
oath, to produce confidence; but we see that they are the more readily trusted who abstain
from taking oaths.
But again, if one is a man of violence, is this a matter of necessity? Yes, he will say,
because his passion carries him away, and burns within him, and does not let the soul be at
rest. Man, to act with violence is not the effect of anger, but of littleness of mind. Were it the
effect of anger, all men, whenever they were angry, would never cease committing acts of
violence. We have anger given us, not that we may commit acts of violence on our
neighbors, but that we may correct those that are in sin, that we may bestir ourselves, that
we may not be sluggish. Anger is implanted in us as a sort of sting, to make us gnash with
our teeth against the devil, to make us vehement against him, not to set us in array against
each other. We have arms, not to make us at war amongst ourselves, but that we may
-7-
employ our whole armor against the enemy. Art thou prone to anger? Be so against thine
own sins: chastise thy soul, scourge thy conscience, be a severe judge, and merciless in thy
sentence against thine own sins. This is the way to turn anger to account. It was for this that
God implanted it within us.
But again, is plunder a matter of necessity? No, in no wise. Tell me, what manner of
necessity is there to be grasping: what manner of compulsion? Poverty, a man will say,
causes it, and the fear of being without common necessaries. Now this is the very reason
why you ought not to be grasping. Wealth so gotten has no security in it. You are doing the
very same thing as a man would do, who, if he were asked why he laid the foundation of his
house in the sand, should say, he did it because of the frost and rain. Whereas this would be
the very reason why he should not lay it in the sand. They are the very foundations which
the rain, and blasts, and wind, most quickly overturn. So that if thou wouldest be wealthy,
never be rapacious; if thou wouldest transmit wealth to thy children, get righteous wealth, at
least, if any there be that is such.
Because this abides, and remains firm, whereas that which is not such, quickly wastes and
perishes. Tell me, hast thou a mind to be rich, and dost thou take the goods of others? Surely
this is not wealth: wealth consists in possessing what is thine own. He that is in possession
of the goods of others, never can be a wealthy man; since at that rate even your very silk
venders, who receive their goods as a consignment from others, would be the wealthiest and
the richest of men. Though for the time, indeed, it is theirs, still we do not call them wealthy.
And why forsooth? Because they are in possession of what belongs to others. For though
the piece itself happens to be theirs, still the money it is worth is not theirs. Nay, and even if
the money is in their hands, still this is not wealth. Now, if consignments thus given render
not men more wealthy because we so soon resign them, how can those which arise from
rapine render them wealthy? However, if at any rate thou desirest to be wealthy, (for the
matter is not one of necessity,) what greater good is it that thou wouldest fain enjoy? Is it a
longer life? Yet, surely men of this character quickly become short-lived. Oftentimes they
pay as the penalty of plunder and rapaciousness, an untimely death; and not only suffer as a
penalty the loss of the enjoyment of their gains, but go out of life having gained but little,
and hell to boot.
Oftentimes too they die of diseases, which are the fruits of self-indulgence, and of toil,
and of anxiety. Fain would I understand why it is that wealth is so eagerly pursued by
mankind. Why surely for this reason hath God set a limit and a boundary to our nature, that
we may have no need to go on seeking wealth beyond it. For instance He hath commanded
us, to clothe the body in one, or perhaps in two garments; and there is no need of any more
to cover us. Where is the good of ten thousand changes of raiment, and those moth-eaten?
The stomach has its appointed bound, and anything given beyond this, will of necessity
destroy the whole man. Where then is the use of your herds, and flocks, and cutting up of
flesh? We require but one roof to shelter us. Where then is the use of your vast ground-
plots, and costly buildings? Dost thou strip the poor, that vultures and jackdaws may have
where to dwell?
And what a hell do not these things deserve? Many are frequently raising edifices that
glisten with pillars and costly marbles, in places which they never so much as saw. What
-8-
scheme is there indeed that they have not adopted? Yet neither themselves reap the benefit,
nor anyone else. The desolateness does not allow them to get away thither; and yet not even
thus do they desist. You see that these things are not done for profits-sake, but in all these
cases folly, and absurdity, and vainglory, is the motive. And this, I beseech you to avoid, that
we may be enabled to avoid also every other evil, and may obtain those good things which
are promised to them that love Him, in our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father,
together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, strength, honor forever. Amen.
-9-
THE THEOLOGY OF GERALD OCOLLINS AND

POSTMODERNISM1
Craig A. Baron2
Gerald OCollins has been a highly influential Roman Catholic theologian for over thirty
years and has authored forty books on various themes of fundamental theology. He has
worked tirelessly to proclaim, expound, and defend the classical doctrines of Christianity and
has established himself as an important figure. At the center of his reflections is the unique
event of revelation and salvation in Jesus Christ. According to OCollins, the incarnation of
the pre-existent Logos and Son of God into history yields a gift of salvation and revelation
that is universal, absolute, and unsurpassable. He believes the incarnation must be
understood realistically as the actual life, death, and resurrection of the (divine) Son of God.
This union between God and creation is eternal and establishes a radically new relationship
with the Triune God: infinity is humanized. Moreover, if theological reflection is to be ideal,
it requires a personal encounter of the theologian with the risen Christ. In other words,
theology is done from within the faith commitment, even though it is dealing with issues of
universal truth about divinity and humanity.
The incarnation is the central doctrine of Christianity and has been under fire since the
opening centuries of its history. Along with a perennial desire of critics to reduce the
incarnation to a metaphorical event, the postmodern context has brought the challenge of
history to classical Christianity in a new way (the contextual/linguistic nature of truth and
experience) and especially the disruptive history of suffering. Today, many theologians have
called for the renegotiation of doctrinal soteriology from the perspective of victims, so as to
circumvent a triumphalistic Christianity that too often avoids the reality of human suffering
and the absence of God.
The question of this paper: Can a traditional/classical type of theology, such as Gerald
OCollins, address these postmodern challenges or is it destined to fall into irrelevancy by
dint of its implicit foundationalism? I will argue that OCollins work will not be rendered
irrelevant in the face of such difficulties, even if his work may need to be modified by
insights from certain aspects of postmodernism. Yet, no intellectual current can be allowed
to dull, dilute, or delimit the radical contours of orthodoxy.
This paper has four parts: first, a survey of the theology of OCollins; second, key
postmodern challenges to classical theology; third, an analysis of the relationship between
the theology of OCollins and postmodernism; and fourth, by showing how OCollins
theological method might be situated within the current postmodern theological
conversation.
1 This paper was presented at the 5th Leuven Encounters in Systematic Theology Conference,
Godhead Here in Hiding: Incarnation and the History of Human Suffering. The Catholic University
of Leuven, Belgium (November 4, 2005).
2 Craig A. Baron, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Theology at St. Johns University, Queens,
New York.
- 11 -
The Theology of Gerald OCollins

The theology of OCollins finds its orientation, method, and grounding in his
understanding of fundamental theology. He defines fundamental theology as the
methodological reflection on divine revelation and the examination of faith; or the study of
the theological knowledge recorded in tradition and scripture and an analysis of the
conditions necessary in human experience to receive that revelation. For OCollins, divine
revelation has reached its climax in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.3 As a
Christian believer, he sees no reason to begin theology by methodically putting aside the
belief attested in Scripture and tradition and experienced in faith. Hence, theology needs to
be faithful to its sources. At the same time, however, it must also be rational and reflective.
The theologian must have an intelligent and self-conscious faith that combines the
sympathetic understanding of the insider with the detachment of the outsider.4 From the
intimacy of the insider comes a personal belief in the divine mystery that is born through
participation and relationship.5 On the other hand, the detachment of the outsider comes
from the use of reason and whatever intellectual tools seem appropriate from history,
philosophy, or language studies. Fundamental theology, therefore, should never begin with
some artificial doubting exercise, but with a critical realism. OCollins states that this stance
requires being conscious of the presuppositions of the reality of faith, the nature of human
experience, and the role of reason that are operative in any theological discourse.
As opposed to philosophical theology, fundamental theology is done in the light of
Christian faith. For the theologian, this requires a realistic admission of his or her
membership in the church and a sharing in the communitys faith experience.6 This notion
of faith presupposes a theological anthropology whereby experiences of contingency and
finitude create an openness and opportunity to see, hear, and accept revelation when
graciously offered. In the fundamental theology of OCollins, the historical and
transcendental experience of Gods saving and revealing self- communication in Christ is
central.7 According to this approach, every experience has an ultimate (hence, religious)
element. This ultimacy relates the human being to God. In other words, there is an absolute,
ultimate ground, horizon, or concern that is found in all human activities, as opposed to a
relative and proximate one. This means that every human life is the realization and
enactment of a saving dialogue with God.8 The ultimate or absolute horizon of being,
meaning, truth, and goodness is to be identified with God; consequently, one can speak of
this transcendental experience and transcendental revelation as part of the human condition.
The transcendental experience concerns the a priori conditions for the possibility of any
experience. According to OCollins, theology can be defined as a religious experience in
3 Gerald OCollins, Fundamental Theology (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1981), 22.
4 Ibid, 6.
5 Gerald OCollins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995), 49-53.

6 Fundamental Theology, 21.
7 Ibid., 2.
8 Ibid., 48.
- 12 -
search of understanding.9 The transcendental experience/revelation establishes the

conditions for receiving divine revelation and salvation in the specific forms of historical
existence, primarily, in the historical experience of Israel and the life, death, and resurrection
of Christ. Additionally, transcendental revelation adopts the form of historical revelation in
and through the concrete experiences and free choices of individual people and
communities. OCollins explains that revelation is a total process involving a divine revealer;
an act of revelation/salvation and a recipient. In short, it is the experience of divine self-
communication wherein the individual subject or the community encounter the Triune God
through grace and are in turn liberated from evil.10 The corresponding theological
anthropology of OCollins claims that human existence is the radical quest for life, meaning,
and love,11 and so, a searching for a relationship with the divine ground and a longing for
liberation from death, absurdity, and hate.
While attempting to formulate a contemporary method that is attuned to the new vision
of theology from the Second Vatican Council, OCollins adopts an approach that is sensitive
to the experiential, Christological, anthropological, pneumatological, contextual, and ethical
dimensions of the faith. When surveying the pluralism of post-conciliar theology, he discerns
three types or styles of theology that are prevalent: academic theology, liberation theology,
and liturgical/spiritual theology. The academic style of theology cultivates reason and
primarily pursues the meaning and truth of Christian revelation through consulting the
religious writings of the past in dialogue with contemporary intellectuals.12 The liberation
style is a more practical way of doing theology. It seeks to promote justice and the common
good. This theology is done in consultation with the poor and suffering. It takes as its
primary locus the victimized non-persons of the world and tries to think about what
theology is called to do or leave undone in this flawed world.13 The liturgical/spiritual style
of theology works in the setting of the church at public prayer. It meditates on the Triune
God as revealed in the liturgical celebration and in the experiences of non-Christians at
prayer. The focus is on the infinite divine beauty. In sum, all three styles of theology are
forms of spiritual seeking: faith seeking understanding, love seeking a more just society, and
hope seeking to liturgically anticipate the final vision of God. For OCollins, Christian
theology must combine all three styles if it is to survive and serve the people of God.14 An
integrative approach to a true theology entails thinking, suffering, and praying about the
great mystery of the crucified Jesus resurrection from the dead.15 While admitting to doing
Christology in a primarily academic style, for example by using hermeneutics to study
tradition and epistemology in order to analyze experience, OCollins attempts to keep the
practical and liturgical styles in mind. He fully realizes that it is false to assume that the
9 Ibid., 53.
10 Ibid., 59.
11 Gerald OCollins, Interpreting Jesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), 31.
12 Gerald OCollins, Retrieving Fundamental Theology: The Three Styles of Contemporary
Theology (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1993), 9.

13 Ibid., 10.
14 Ibid., 14.
15 Gerald OCollins, Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic Examination of
Christs Resurrection (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987), 209.
- 13 -
academic approach is the only access to truth in theology.16 Truth can be ascertained in
various contexts through correspondence, coherence, disclosure, critical appropriation, and
consensus.17
Following this brief look at the foundations of OCollins theology, it is now appropriate
to review his Christology. This will provide a glimpse of how he works out the balance of
the academic, practical, and spiritual.
OCollins defines Christology as the systematic reflection on the person, being, and doing
of Jesus of Nazareth. More specifically, Christology is centered on the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This grounding in the Paschal Mystery
also includes a look forward to the Eschaton and backwards to the pre-existence of the
Logos before creation.18 From the beginning of Christianity, the Paschal Mystery has been
the primary message of the faith, that is, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as Lord
and the participation of believers in this great act of redemption through baptism and faith.
The emphasis was on a functional Christology (soteriology) rather than on his actual being
(ontology). The whole Christ event forms the source material for Christology. Beginning
with the person of Jesus and including relevant Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) material
as background, OCollins thinks that Christology should also include the responses evoked
by Jesus in its resources for reflection: the church, New Testament, creeds, doctrines,
liturgical worship, millions of Christians lives, saints, preaching and theological reflection,
private prayer and personal experience of Jesus, art, literature, plays, films, and the responses
of other religions.19 However, real knowledge of Jesus comes only from the challenges of
being a disciple.20 OCollins believes that the ideal prerequisite for any theologians
engagement with the christological enterprise is to have deeply experienced Christ in faith
and to have been led by the Spirit.21 While historical scholarship, philosophical analysis, and
theological investigations are important in coming to an understanding of Jesus being and
work, ultimately it is love of Jesus that leads to the deeper insights surrounding the mystery
of his personality. It is love that lets us see reality and know the truth, particularly of
people.22
Christianity makes the startling claim that a personally pre-existent divine being has really
assumed a human existence in Jesus of Nazareth. This is a unique claim among the world
religions, because it goes beyond the acknowledgment of a general action and presence of
God as merely creating and maintaining the world. As OCollins understands it:
16Christology, 20-21.
17 Ibid., 13.
18 Gerald OCollins and Daniel Kendall, Focus on Jesus: Essays in Christology and Soteriology
(Herefordshire: Gracewing, 1996), 1.

19Christology, 3-4.
20 Interpreting Jesus, 7.
21 Ibid., xi.
22 Gerald OCollins, Easter Faith: Believing in the Risen Jesus (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press,
2003), 33.
- 14 -
The incarnation involves a divine being who is by definition eternal,

without a body, and unlimited in power, knowledge and presence (i.e.,
omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent) personally taking up an
existence that is temporal, partly material and thoroughly limited in power,
knowledge and presence. Through the incarnation God, who is pure Spirit
assumes and (not merely creates and conserves) matter; the eternal God
personally enters time. . . . The incarnation entails an immortal,
unchanging divine person becoming subject to change and, above all, to
death. The eternal Word, who necessarily exists and whose divine life is
immune from suffering, becomes contingent, experiences suffering, and
dies on a cross.23
This Christian belief in the incarnation has no Jewish or Gentile antecedents, which
OCollins interprets as a sign that it is a belief founded in a unique religious event, a divine
interruption in history. The New Testament instantiates this divine and human theological
trajectory by naming, at the same time, the one who was crucified and died as Jesus of
Nazareth and as Lord and Son of God.24 Metaphysically speaking, OCollins accepts the
axiom that action follows being. Consequently, Christs proclamation of the divine
kingdom at least implies his being on par with God.25
OCollins argues that it is a mistake to take the doctrine of the incarnation as the central
message of Christianity. He points out that it was through a series of doctrinal debates with
the heretical views of the Ebionites, Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, and Eutychians that the
early church councils were pushed to emphasize the Incarnation and the relationship
between the two natures of Jesus Christ at the expense of the Paschal Mystery.26 The first
four ecumenical councils were acknowledged as presenting the essential and orthodox norm
for understanding and interpreting the Christological (and Trinitarian) faith of the New
Testament.27 According to OCollins, the Incarnation means that Jesus Christ is
consubstantial with humanity and divinity and that the hypostatic union entails that the
divine Word is eternally united to his humanity. A full humanity and a full divinity are
required for Jesus to be the true savior of the world. Moreover, it was because he had the
divine nature and was the Son of God that Jesus could speak with divine compassion and
authority and so could reveal the loving and demanding presence of God.28 From an ethical-
practical point of view, believers after the incarnation encounter a transformed universe that
requires respect for the environment, other human beings, and ones own body.29 And yet
the Paschal mystery remains primary, since it was the experience of salvation through
23 Gerald OCollins, The Incarnation: The Critical Issues, in The Incarnation: An
Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God eds. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel
Kendall, and Gerald OCollins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 6.
24 Christology, 168.
25 Ibid., 60.
26 Ibid., 172-190.
27 Ibid., 194.
29 The Incarnation: The Critical Issues, 18.
- 15 -
Christs dying and rising from the dead that generated the later reflection on his different
natures.
OCollins takes a realistic approach to the doctrine of the incarnation. It is a unique and
specific event that happened only once in human history. A realistic or strong sense of the
incarnation says that there is a union between true divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ.
As a necessary element of any orthodox affirmation of the incarnation, this pre-existent
Word of God or Son of God is understood as having assumed human form. As a matter of
fact, for OCollins, the divinity of Christ is upheld only by his personal existence within
the eternal life of the Trinity.30
John Hick is representative of a group of religious scholars who argue that a
Christocentric attitude, like that of OCollins, should be replaced by a theocentric attitude
instead.31 Hick, and those in agreement with him, are at odds with the several tenets of the
Christocentric posture: that the resurrection lifted Jesus beyond the historical limits to
become the effective way for all people to God, that there is no salvation outside of Christ,
and that Christ is the unique mediator between God and humanity. By contrast, a God-
centered theology would provide for a more democratic vision of the divine (salvation
offered through all religions) and would relativize the absolute claims of particular religious
traditions. Jesus should be seen as differing in degree of religious experience but not in kind
from other people, especially the saints and mystics of the world religions. OCollins says
that such a soft approach to the incarnation, or what he calls a Neo-Arianism, is in direct
opposition to the New Testament and a conciliar understanding of the doctrine of the
Incarnation: Jesus of Nazareth is the eternal Son of God who assumed a human existence to
bring salvation through his life, death, resurrection, and sending of the Holy Spirit for all
people, times, and places.32 In OCollins view, the fundamental flaw of Hick is his ignoring
the details of the New Testament where the significance of the resurrection, the Holy Spirit,
and the divinity of Christ are clearly and affirmatively expressed. Moreover, Hicks view is
further skewed by his astonishing claim that the central theme of Christianity is the
incarnation when, in fact, as OCollins points out, it is the Paschal Mystery.33 In short, the
metaphorical interpretation of the incarnation by Hick emphases that Jesus incarnated or
embodied the divine purpose (functional view) as opposed to the literal interpretation of
OCollins in which Christ is the substantive incarnation of the divine (ontological view).34
OCollins is forthright about his personal commitment to Christianity and its guiding role
in his theology. As part of a stronger acknowledgement of the place of presuppositions in all
thinking, he points out how a persons particular worldview performs a similar function in
his or her thinking. A persons worldview or foundational beliefs determine what is possible
or impossible in the working of the world, what is real and unreal.35 From the
30 Ibid., 3.
31 Focus on Jesus, 15.
32 Ibid., 30.
33 Ibid., 36.
34 Ibid., 43.
35 Easter Faith, 5.
- 16 -
Enlightenment onward, many thinkers have adopted a scientific worldview that sees the
cosmos and history as closed to anything new or novel; everything is explainable by cause
and effect. For OCollins, it is just such a mindset that is inherently incapable of duly
considering the supernatural and miraculous. At this point, OCollins turns to the place of
analogy in theological discourse to try to exemplify the relationship he sees between the
common and uncommon in human experience. While believing that the incarnation and
resurrection are purely divine acts of graceand so beyond naturalistic explanation and
precedenthe still maintains that there must be something about them that is not totally
new. Otherwise, how could human beings finite minds grasp anything of the infinite?
Therefore, special, unique events of God disrupting the natural law are possible and are not
denied by scienceeven if one cannot know in advance what the transcendent God will
dosince it no longer inflexibly maintains a mechanistic or deterministic worldview but
actually allows space for the unfamiliar and the unique.36
When dealing with the interventions of the divine, whether the incarnation, resurrection,
or miracles, the historicity of these events as happening at a certain place and time can be
categorized as unique events (heretofore unseen) but not a priori impossible. From
OCollins perspective, the creator has established the natural laws of operation in the world
and, while normatively respecting those laws, is not hindered from breaking them from time
to time for a good reason.37 This attention to the situation of the revelation event properly
grounds theology as a discipline of faith and history. Also, when one accepts the
resurrection, for example, this entails the transformation of how one sees reality and requires
a new way of acting and being in the world38what could be called an expanded plausibility
structure. Consequently, whether one is reading the text of the world or the scriptures, there
is a theological justification for searching for new facets about revelation and salvation.39
God can surprise.
Therefore, symbols are the suitable means for God to offer revelation and salvation
because of the human symbolic nature of body and soul and the plus-value of the symbol
(its polyvalence and the impossibility of its meaning and truth ever being conceptually
expressed definitively).40 This theological approach is vindicated by the Second Vatican
Councils Dei Verbum. This document established that Gods symbolic self-communication
should be the starting point for doing theology.
In sum, the Christian religion will flourish or diminish commensurately with what
adherents of the faith believe Jesus to be and to have done for humanity.41 Classical
soteriology expresses the general belief of Christianity; that it was Christs loving and
obedient self-giving, total innocence, and divine identity that gave his sacrifice on the cross
36 Ibid., 29.
37 Ibid., 3.
38 Ibid., 56.
39 Ibid., 84.
40 Retrieving Fundamental Theology, 103.
- 17 -
its unique value as the cause of universal salvation and, further, that the resurrection is its
means of mediation.42
Postmodern Challenges to Classical Theology
Having surveyed some of the major themes in OCollins theology, we now turn to key
contemporary challenges to such a theological method. The postmodern challenges to
theology are well known. While the particular questions and concerns vary in detail from one
thinker to another, they seem to have in common a rejection of foundationalist ontologies;
an Archimedean point outside of history. Postmodern theorists claim that there are no
unchanging truths nor is there an immutable human nature. The central or determining role
of language, history, culture, and paradigm-determined reason for experience and thinking
understood as a deferring and differing of the signmakes all conceptualizations transitory
because of the in-flux character of Being.
Moreover, modern notions of the self as autonomous, self-determining, and
metaphysically grounded give way to a decentered subject. The postmodern self is thought
of as an opaque product of variable roles and performances which have been imposed on it
by the constraints of society and inner drives and conflicts.43 The self is deemed to be
thoroughly relational, an interplay of properties and a function of the intersection of
impersonal forces. The de-substantialization and de-individualization of the subject makes
speaking of the I difficult in the postmodern world.44 Therefore, perceptions of the self
accentuate that it is inculturated, communal/social, historical, and relational.45
Postmodernism also makes any claims for universal human experience (general) or
unmediated knowing of self, world, truth, or God epistemologically untenable. Experience is
always from somewhere in particular. As Thomas Kelly has pointed out, postmodernism
aims to undercut theological approaches that are generally optimistic concerning human
possibility of encountering the divine (a construct) from within human experience itself.46
In essence, according to Georges De Schrijver, this is the passing of the era of
ontotheology and the metaphysics of presence. There is an awareness of the withdrawal of
Being in the moment of its manifestation to a presence that has already been lost while
continuing to send in favor of a de-centering release of difference.47
42 Christology, 286-299.
43 Anthony Thiselton, Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self : On Meaning, Manipulation
and Promise (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1995), 121.
44 David Ray Griffin, Postmodern Theology and A/Theology: A Response to Mark Taylor, in
David Ray Griffin, William A. Beardslee and Joe Holland, Varieties of Postmodern Theology (Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press, 1989), 33.
45 Terry Eagleton, The Illusions of Postmodernism (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996), 86.
46 Thomas M. Kelly, Theology at the Void: The Retrieval of Experience (Notre Dame, Indiana:
University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 3.

47 Georges De Schrijver, Postmodernity and the Withdrawal of the Divine: A Challenge for
Theology, in Lieven Boeve and Lambert Leijssen eds. Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern Context
(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 39.
- 18 -
The religious responses to the postmodern vacuum range from the absolute no of
atheology (nihilism), to the humble yes of western religions (holy mystery). Postmodern
christologies have attempted to accommodate some of these challenges into their
investigations while prescinding from the more radical aspects, such as the rejection of
universal and transcendent truth. Contemporary christology has begun to exceed the limits
of modern christology as set forth by Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth. These
christologies presuppose the stability of Christian truth in history as established by either the
experience of the divine or the revelation of the Word of God, even while acknowledging
that it may be expressed in new forms.48 There has been a noticeable internalizing of the
postmodern consciousness in numerous theological specializations: historical Jesus research,
narrative theology, liberation theology, political theology, feminist theology, theologies of
inculturation, and Christian theologies of religious pluralism. They have gravitated toward a
theological method centered on historical consciousness (the social mediation of meaning
and truth) and the sense that new interpretations/opportunities will be produced in different
situations and by encounters with the other and the different. There has also been a
tendency in postmodern christologies to move away from beginning with a christology from
above and from situating the doctrine or theology of the Trinity as the source of
christology.49
The construct of Roger Haight is an example of a postmodern christology. His approach
defines Jesus as the symbol of God. He begins with the idea that when Gods transcendent
presence is experienced by a group, the awareness and conceptualization of this divine reality
will take the form and character of the specific situation, language, culture, and symbols that
mediates it to consciousness.50 Concrete symbols are things, places, events, or persons that
mediate a presence and consciousness of another reality. According to Haight, Jesus is the
concrete symbol of God in the Christian religion. People encounter God in Jesus in the past
and in the present. Jesus is the mediation of Gods presence to Christianity and the ultimate,
transcendent reality of God is the object of Christian faith. Jesus Christ is the mediator of
the specifically Christian faith. He is the single central figure. But, for Haight, Jesus is not the
exclusive and determinant character of Christian faith.51
All religious symbols have a tension built within them between the autonomous identity
of a symbol and the meaning of the symbol that transcends itself by pointing beyond itself to
a universal relevance. The universal is found in the particularity of the medium through
symbolic mediation. Christology is, to a certain extent, about the distinctive individuality of
the human being Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus pointed to something other than himself: God and
Gods rule in history. The interpreter or believer approaches him with the religious question
about a salvation that comes from God. Jesus mediates God by acting like the God he
preached and fulfilling peoples deep and existential religious interests.52 In other words,
Jesus was not communicating an objective set of doctrine about God but was rather
48 Roger Haight, Jesus: Symbol of God (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999), 318.
49 Ibid., 330.
50 Ibid., 13.
51 Ibid., 14-15.
52 Ibid., 203.
- 19 -
symbolizing in a particular way the presence of God and modeling a way of responding to
that divine presence. Haight continually returns to the importance of the tension (dialectical
character) in religious symbols between the reference and the referent. He says that, on one
hand, Jesus is the object of Christology as its source and ground because he is the one who
reveals God. On the other hand, Jesus is of interest only because he mediates God and
Gods salvation. Therefore, as the symbol that mediates God, Jesus is and is not the object
of Christology. Christians experience a finite person in history with Jesus and in and through
him experience God.53
Haight asks a provocative question about Christian faith: Is Christian faith directed to
Jesus so that it stops, or is its faith in God mediated through Jesus? He says the answer must
be both yes and no. The council of Chalcedon affirmed as much with its doctrine of the
divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. The two natures correspond to the dialectical
structure of Jesus as the symbol of God and consequently can avoid the propensity to
monophysitism. Haight recommends that one not think about the answer in conceptual
terms that are static (i.e., substance) but must instead be seen as a dynamic and participatory
process where Christian faith is faith in God mediated through Christ. These human and
divine dimensions are found together in the dynamics of symbolic mediation. For example,
Christian liturgy does not involve the worshipping of Jesus insofar as he is a human being.
Rather he is worshipped because he embodies and makes present God as the symbol or
sacrament of God. When this conviction is connected to the new situation of dialogical
interaction with the world religions, Haight concludes that a theocentric worldview is
required to replace the previous christocentric worldview.54 Additionally, the Christian
understanding of God as Trinity will also need some readjustment. Haight says that the
Trinity is a symbol itself that summarizes the Christian faith by confessing its belief that God
is creator, historical savior, and inner power of authentic life and final salvation. Finally, the
interpretation of Jesus as the symbol of God lends itself to a Spirit Christology. This, for
Haight, is the most adequate conceptualization to meet the postmodern challenges and to
take advantage of the new opportunities.55
The Christology of Gerald OCollins and Postmodernism
The history of Christology could be framed by the bordering options of fideism and
rationalism. In fideistic christologies, reason does not have an important place in matters of
revelation and faith. This is an insular religion. In rationalistic christologies, faith is re-
interpreted purely by the dominant ways of thinking in a given time period. This is an
accommodated or compromised religion. These extremes in Christology are usually the
exception; though, they are helpful for constructing the outlines of the debate. In practice,
the majority of christologies are mainline which, according to William Thompson-Uberuaga,
form part of the faith-seeking-understanding perspective. This middle approach to
Christology maintains a unity between faith and reason that keeps faith from succumbing to
53 Ibid., 205.
54 Ibid., 206.
55 Ibid., 490.
- 20 -
superstition, and reason from being bracketed from imagination, affection, and action.56
Even among such divergent theologians as Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar,
mainline christologies attempt to inculcate the challenges posed to New Testament
Christology by the historical sciences. They recognize how those sciences can offer a
purifying critique to any nave view of the Christian faith. Yet, they also believe that faith has
its own ability to challenge and purify those sciences.57 This mainline method is realistic
because it is based in the faith-reason tension and so avoids any propensity to claim an
Archimedean point beyond the limitations of history.
OCollins is a theologian who belongs to the mainline tradition in Christology and tries to
work through the limitations of modern thinking. This can be seen in his readiness to draw
from philosophical, historical, and biblical resources. OCollins faith-in-search-of-
understanding approach is seen particularly when his dogmatic and fundamental theology
seem to permeate each other. As with Rahner, the event of supernatural revelation is
rendered credible not by an independent philosophical prolegomenon but rather by the
meaningfulness, existential assimilability, and human indispensability of the fundamental
dogmas of Christianity.58 In particular, OCollins is concerned that his Christology primarily
addresses questions of urgent, contemporary significance instead of timeless formulations.
He wants Christology and soteriology to be linked with other branches of theology and he
tries to balance the normativity of classical Christology with an awareness of its limitations
such as the need to depart on occasions from conciliar terminology and frameworks of
questioning.59 Finally, OCollins contends that the truth of Christian revelation remains
irreducible to any set of abstract, timeless ideals.60 To put it another way, the Christian faith
is wedded to history. Individual Christians see their own history as founded somehow in the
history of Jesus. This historical faith is always contextualized in the space and time of a
concrete church community. The church is the place of revelation: the Word of God is
proclaimed and the Spirit of God actualized in the communitys life. Believers are
empowered by the faith and the sacraments to reveal to the world the Triune God and
Gods desire to save people in their particular circumstances.61
Postmodern discourse highlights the notion of absence: absence of universal truth,
absence of definitive meaning in language and texts, absence of a permanent subject and
identity, and the absence of the divine from human experience. OCollins has accorded a
56 William Thompson Uberuaga, New Christologies: State of the Question, Liturgical Ministry
vol. 11 (2002): 3-4.

57 Ibid., 8.
58 See Karl Rahner, Observations on the Situation of Faith Today, in Problems and Perspectives
of Fundamental Theology eds. Ren Latourelle and Gerald OCollins (New York: Paulist Press, 1982),
281; Gerald OCollins, Christology, 230-232.
59 John P. Galvin, Jesus Christ in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives vol. 1 eds.
Francis Schssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 315.
60 Gerald OCollins, Foundations of Theology (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1971), 65.
61 William Henn, The Church as Easter Witness in the Thought of Gerald OCollins, S.J. in The
Convergence of Theology: A Festschrift Honoring Gerald OCollins eds. Daniel Kendall and Stephen
T. Davis (New York: Paulist Press, 2001), 209.
- 21 -
central place to presence in his Christology and acknowledges its problematized status in
deconstructive philosophy. He understands absence in dialectical relationship with presence.
The discussion of God in his work can give one a sense of how he would negotiate absence
in other areas of theology.
OCollins account of God draws from the two perspectives of the biblical-experiential-
concrete and the philosophical-precise-abstract. From one perspective, God is supremely
mysterious, indefinable, unknowable, and transcendent. From the other perspective, God is
personal, relational, perfectly loving, compassionate, and immanent.62 This state of apparent
opposites is overcome with the recognition that matter and spirit are naturally related from a
theological perspective. God is active always and everywhere as the ground of being and
efficient cause as he creates and sustains the world.63 How else could a completely spiritual
God create the material world? How could the spiritual body of the risen Christ become the
body and blood of the Eucharist? How could the eternal Logos become truly human in the
incarnation? In short, any perceived ontological gap between the infinite and finite, time and
eternity, and the human and the divine is never total or completely exclusive.64
Even in the functioning of symbols where a revealing, representing, and re-presenting of
reality (i.e., God) is acknowledged as taking place, there is simultaneously the recognition
that it is not fully expressed by the symbol. All professions of faith fall short of expressing
their intended reality.65 A balanced theological perspective falls between the extremes of an
idolatry of pure presence and an iconoclasm of complete absence. As seen in the revealing
and concealing of God in the symbol, sacrament, and the incarnation, God is truly present
and encounterable but is also absent in a way that preserves the infinity of God and
generates a hope that looks forward to a future experience of Gods plentitude. In other
words, symbols really contain and make present the symbolized. There are no empty
symbolssymbols always give rise to thought. But they are richly open ended and cannot
ever express conceptually once and for all their total meaning and full truth.66 Symbols
provide a mediated presence; never a strictly and exclusively immediate presence.67
When this concealing and unconcealing of reality is analyzed from a christological
viewpoint, the divine offer of salvation through the incarnate Word and crucified and risen
savior is understood as being present everywhere, but mediated in infinitely various and
limited ways. The situation is never a matter of asking if Christ is present or not present;
rather, it is a question about the mode of his presence. The sensible mediates truth through
the body, language, culture, tradition, and history. As Louis-Marie Chauvet observes, what is
63 Ibid., 107-109.
64 Ibid., 233.
66 Retrieving Fundamental Theology, 99-103.
- 22 -
most spiritual comes through what is most corporeal.68 If God is going to save humanity, it
must be where it is in time and space. Bodily presence is the hinge of salvation.69
Therefore, Christ is really but not fully present and active in the liturgical community, the
world religions, and in experience and history until the Eschaton when the risen Christ will
be publicly present in an undeniably universal fashion.70 In other terms, Christ is present as a
passing trace coming from the past of salvation history and moving toward its culmination in
the future Parousia. Until then, all meaning and truth are relativized by time and place and so
are caught up in a dynamic process of development, searching/questioning, and the dialectic
of absence and presence of truth. In this way, OCollins indicates a soft form of postmodern
theology where the limitations of reason are understood, such as one finds in the Radical
Orthodox theologian Graham Ward.71 As OCollins succinctly puts it: Christology is a
matter of our now experiencing and systematically reflecting on the presence of the coming
Christ rather than our acknowledging (in a theoretical way) the future of the present
Christ.72 The new must take precedence over the old because he who is and was presents
himself also as the one to come.73
A new sense of evil and collective human sin is another key aspect in doing theology in
the postmodern context. After the diffuse violence of the twentieth century, there is a deep
pessimism about the future of the human race since it is now clear just how acute its
tendency is for self-destruction.74 While never forfeiting the conviction that Christ is the
unsurpassed and definitive savior of the world through the incarnation and resurrection,
OCollins couches such belief in a way that avoids a facile optimism or triumphalism.75 Evil
is the absence of God, that is, the good, life, appropriate relationships, meaning, and truth.
All of humanity shares in the irrational evil that killed Christ. The Christian interpretation of
this history of sin is that God eternally planned to commune in love with the world.
Salvation is one great mystery comprised of the three moments of creation, redemption, and
future consummation through the activity of the Logos and the Spirit. Redemption comes as
a divine gift of liberation from alienation, death, and ignorance.
And yet, Auschwitz and Hiroshima have set Jesus own violent death in a ghastly new
context of interpretation.76 The act of being tortured to death as such (e.g., Jesus on the
cross) cannot be read as a loving Gods means of redeeming the world. According to
68 Louis-Marie Chauvet, The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body (Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001), xii.

70 Christology, 322-342.
71 See Graham Ward, Cities of God (New York: Routledge, 2000), 22; Theology and Critical
Theory 2nd edition (New York: St. Martin Press, 2000), 1-4; Questioning God, in Questioning God
eds. John D. Caputo, Mark Dooley and Michael J. Scanlon (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press, 2001), 275-283.
72 Interpreting Jesus, 11-12.
74 Jesus: Symbol of God, 332.
75 Christology, 13.
76 Ibid., 223.
- 23 -
OCollins, it was his total innocence and divine identity that gave his sacrifice its unique
value. God accepted and made this victim holy by raising him from the dead and glorifying
him. The self-giving love of Christ with which he accepted his passion prevails over the
worst of human malice. Christ expiates and makes reparation for sin by definitively dealing
with it. As the victim of wrongdoing, he provides wrongdoers with the means of rising
above sin by making them into adopted children of God through sharing in the divine life.
The self-giving love of Christ was demonstrated in his acceptance of his passion. This love
thwarts the worst of human cruelty. For OCollins, then, love is the primary key to Christs
salvific work, because God is love and activity flows from being.77 Love is an active presence
(life giving and life enhancing) as the experience of Christs saving presence has shown from
the beginnings of Christian faith. Additionally, he is especially present in suffering bodies.
With the resurrection, the disclosive power of the cross is unveiled as the weak, the despised,
and the suffering fools of Christ are transformed into special mediators of revelation and
salvation. In short, God has a preferential option for the poor.
OCollins explains that redemption in Christian theology is not a spectator sport. The
beneficiaries of redemptive liberation are to share in the ongoing struggle against evil.78 After
the Holocaust, therefore, theology can no longer be distanced from praxis.79 It must work
for justice for the living and the dead victims of history. Eternal salvation is received not by
escaping from the specifics of everyday embodied human existence, but by working through
it. Easter faith implies the obligation to set free those who suffer from economic injustice
and human misery. OCollins asserts that the pressure behind responsible Christian service
stems from a hope for the full redemption of all human beings. Social and political action for
the eradication of institutionalized sin verifies the truth of the Christian hope for the full
redemption of every human being. The hope for the coming Kingdom of God is never
separated from the hope for the world. This is no crass Utopianism.80 Christ is in agony until
the end of the world. The many different negative experiences of suffering can be
opportunities to mediate the transcendent value of justice. However, as OCollins is quick to
point out, there is never irresistible and overwhelmingly clear evidence in history and
experience that redemption has occurred. There are only hints or signs of redemption that
come through the sacramental life of the church, when hopeless situations are overcome and
hope is maintained in the face of death. In other words, Christs redemptive activity is both
limited in its present impact and not unambiguously revealed. A realistic point of view is
encouraged: theology fails to match the mysterious depth of the Paschal Mystery.81
Johann Baptist Metz says that theology does not work out of an all-reconciling answer to
the history of human suffering. Rather, it continually strives to find a new language and
77 Ibid., 286-287.
80 Jesus Risen, 177-178.
- 24 -
praxis in order to make negative events or experiences unforgettable.82 OCollins admits that
such absurd evil and senseless suffering in the world must be made a part of the living
memory or anamnesis of the community of faith. However, since it is beyond the usual
theoretical paradigms of interpretation of academic theology, the only real response is to
repeat in faith the biblical stories of liberation so as to make the mystery of evil symbolically
bearable.83 Additionally, OCollins believes that there can never be a universal Christology
that could be adequately valid for all human experiences, world cultures, and geographic
regions.84 Ultimately, OCollins seems to advocate a quasi-apophatic theology that will allow
Gods future to bring about the reconciliation of all things with the universal plan of
salvation. He is also focused on the place of historical consciousness and pluralism in the
Christology of the twenty-first century.
Conclusion
This essay has been an overview of the theology of Gerald OCollins and a sketch of
some of the major challenges launched against it by postmodernism. While the discussion is
far from exhaustive, it highlights a few of the key issues that will certainly dominate
theological/christological conversations in the third millennium: divine absence, relativism,
historical consciousness, and the irreducible nature of human suffering. OCollins adjusts to
the period of thinking after modernity where grand and universal claims about truth, history,
and soteriology are chastened by the realities of historical and embodied existence. However,
under the assault of extreme forms of postmodernism (deconstruction) in contemporary
Western culture, he performs gracefully. He strikes a balance between the extremes of
traditionalism and relativism. By maintaining a high Christology that is grounded in the
Chalcedonian conviction that the pre-existent eternal Logos became incarnate in Jesus of
Nazareth, he judiciously incorporates into his theological enterprise the insights from the
low christologies of some political and liberation theologies; and he does so without ever
forfeiting a realistic view of the incarnation and its universal soteriological efficacy. While
new ideas and fresh perspectives are welcomed from experience, history and philosophy, his
theology is done primarily from within the ecclesial milieu of the Roman Catholic Church
and in accord with the orthodox Christian tradition. OCollins seems well-equipped to
engage a critical correlation between the coupling of faith and reason that is so important in
the postmodern world. He is a sober voice amidst the alarm of transience and nihilism, such
as when he explains that it is an exaggeration to claim that the historical has replaced the
metaphysical and the ontologicalboth are still needed when doing theology and both are
still possible. There can be no severing of the ontological and functional in an investigation
of Christs place in salvation. Also, he warns theologians of the dangers in adopting a
theological perspective that is too lop-sided, narrow, limited, or cut off from a living
community of faith. He encourages theologians not to forget the important insights that are
to be gained from academic, liberation, and liturgical-spiritual resources.
82 Johann Baptist Metz, God and the Evil of this World: Forgotten, Unforgettable Theodicy, in
The Return of the Plague eds. Jos Oscar Beozbo and Virgil Elizondo (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
1997), 4.
- 25 -
With that said, some of OCollins christological positions will be subject to debate in
postmodern theology. For instance, he adopts a maximalist approach to the New Testament
that leads to a claim of divinity in the teachings of Jesus, the Gospel writers, and Paul, and to
the facticity of the virginal conception, empty tomb, and resurrection appearances, all of
which will be troubling to some biblical exegetes. Moreover, OCollins situating of
christological reflection in the living tradition of the church and in conjunction with faith,
liturgy, and spirituality will draw criticism from Third Quest christology. And, his
christocentric reading of the world religions, along with his ambiguous stance on the role of
the cross in redemption, will also draw fire. Finally, OCollins phenomenology of experience
in general as a source for theology and the transcendental variety in particular will surely
trouble postmodern thinkers for not taking seriously enough the determining place of
language and its unstable nature. However, none of these possible concerns undermines the
valuable contribution of OCollins to craft a theologically viable method for today. His
unashamed belief in Jesus Christ as risen lord and savior leads him to conclude that what is
most radical, particular, and historical about truth is orthodoxys claim that God has become
man.
- 26 -
LATE HAVE I LEFT THEE: A REFLECTION ON AUGUSTINE THE

MANICHEE AND THE LOGIC OF BELIEF ADOPTION
Charles Natoli1
It was fortunate that St. Augustine, who was so well versed in all the arts of
controversy, abandoned Manicheism; for he would have been well able to
remove its grossest errors and to make the rest of it a system that, in his
hands, would have left the orthodox at a loss.
Pierre Bayle, Critical and Historical Dictionary, Manicheans
We are told that when, as he often did, he requested a work of Tertullians, St. Cyprian
would simply say, Give me my master. It is not too much to say that Augustine has been to
the Christian West what Tertullian was to Cyprian: the master, the mentor par excellence though,
of late, and especially since its noontide in seventeenth century France, his light has suffered
some eclipse.2 This essay too takes Augustine for its masternot (alas!) out of a piety like
Cyprians, but out of a conviction that, on the subject of religious and other beliefs, he has as
much to teach us as he did Pascal, Newman, and many another whose thought his own
foreshadows or informs.
Sauce, Goose and Gander
The Augustine we should miss the most, of all the Augustines that never
were, is the one who never left the Manichees, who threw all his talent and
energy into defending and defining the most extreme of his causes.
James J. ODonnell, Augustine: A New Biography
In On the Usefulness of Believing, his final work as a layman, we find Augustine still engaged
with the Manichean faith he had left five years before. We will speak of Manicheisms principal
tenets before long. For the moment, let us just note how, in an aside, he queries the critique of
Manicheism he has just been making: But why do I not reply to myself that these elegant and
delightful similitudes, and censures of this kind, can be poured out wittily and smartly by any
adversary against anyone who teaches anything? Let us therefore, he continues, have done with
metaphor-mongering and charge-flinging so that matter may clash with matter, cause with
cause, and reason with reason.3
1 Charles Natoli, PhD, is Chair of Department of Philosophy and Classical Studies at St. John
Fisher College and author of Fire in the Dark: Essays on Pascals Penses and Provinciales (University
of Rochester Press, 2005).
2 See for example L. Kolakowski, God Owes Us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascals Religion
and on the Spirit of Jansenism (Chicago and London, 1995).

3 I cite previous translations of Augustine where a good one is readily available, though I have
sometimes slightly altered them. For the Confessions I use John K. Ryans fine version.
- 27 -
But what if, in the clash of reason with reason, it should be that either side can avail itself of
essentially the same arguments and objections? In particular we may ask whether, with respect to
Augustines conversion from Manicheism to Christianity, the type of objection that he used to
fell the old belief would, if fairly pressed, have felled the new; and if the safeguards Augustine
used to defend the new belief would, had he chosen to deploy them on behalf of the old, have
protected it from refutation as well. After all, as the saying goes, whats sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander.
For example, if in many faiths there are some knots of doctrine that seem to bid defiance to
all reason, should only one be allowed to still objections to this by saying, to use Augustines
own words, that It is not a falsehood, but a Mystery (non est mendacium, sed mysterium)?
But in the story of the conversion of Augustine, the question most apt to provoke
considerations like the foregoing concerns the interpretation of texts.
As is well known, the young Augustine found the Old Testament to be a stone of stumbling
(Confessions, 3.5). He found its style quite lacking in the nobility of Ciceros, and he was sorely
vexed by many passages which, taken literally, he could not find fitting or true. It was not until
St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, taught him to interpret the Old Testament allegorically that his
objections to it fell away (5.14).
Now Augustine, while yet a Manichee, found grave fault with the Manichean scriptures for
speaking poorly, not to say falsely, of corporeal things such as the heavenly bodies (5.5.). Indeed,
mere astronomers seemed to know more about them! But why could not the offending passages
in the Manichee scriptures have been intellectually rehabilitated in the same way as their fellows
in the Old Testamentto wit, by allegorical interpretation? Why should what seemed literal
errors on the part of the Manichees have been denied a saving, spiritual, figurative sense? Could
Augustine not have said Manis text is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the
heavens go? After all, Augustine was quite willing to show the Christian Scriptures some
indulgence on the score of literal accuracy in matters astronomical. And so in controversy with
Felix the Manichee he will say, . . . it is not written in the Gospel that the Lord said: I send you
the Paraclete who will teach you the courses of the sun and the moon. For he wished to make
Christians, not mathematicians (Against Felix, 1.10).
Is this sort of thing methodological good faith, or mere special pleading for a parti pris?
The Manichees and Augustine
Once baptized by Ambrose, Augustine chose to privilege one of his lives, the
one lived as a baptized member of the Caecilianist church in Africa, as the
authentic religious experience of his life, but not all who knew him shared
that view. Manicheism was with him early and late, and was the one truly
impassioned religious experience of his life. He was the sort of person who has
a great love affair when young, sees that it just wont work, breaks it off,
then settles down in a far more sober and sensible marriage. What he says
and does for the rest of his life will be marked by firm allegiance and
commitment to the late-blooming relationship, but the mark of the first
- 28 -
never goes away, and some who knew him early will be unable to credit the
marriage because they remember the passion.
ODonnell, Augustine: A New Biography
When Augustine was young, Manicheism was at its zenith in North Africa. It was a creed
well suited to appeal strongly to talented and ambitious youth. Though widespread in high
circles, it had also the allure of the exotic and the avant-gardea kind of Bossa Nova, Cool
New Thing, if you will. Moreover, by being outrageously demanding, the sect dispensed an
oblique form of flattery that can have a powerful appeal to the young and talented. For by
insisting that salvation could be won only through the most heroic asceticism and
renunciationon the face of it, a gospel little likely to appeal to the young or to anyone!it
implied that its faithful were, at least in embryo, a corps d lite capable of storming such heights.
(But if notwell then, perhaps in another life! This was a fallback that might have its own allure
for one who later famously longed to be made chaste but not yet.)
Though preached as the fulfillment of earlier revelations, and though its founder claimed to
be the Paraclete, Manicheism is better understood as a religion in its own right rather than a
mere Christian heresy. Its founder, the Babylonian apostle of light Mani (210-277), spread it
tirelessly far and wide until his execution by the Persians.
Though in the West, Manicheism quickly dimmed after its high noon in the days of
Augustines youthindeed, its decline in North Africa began shortly after he left itin the
Orient it met with a much longer success, spreading east along the Silk Road and south as far as
the South China Sea. It was powerfully entrenched in the western Chinese kingdom of the
Uighurs until the ninth and tenth centuries when it declined under pressure from Buddhism.
Remnants of it endured there until the early thirteenth century when they perished in the
conquests of Genghis Khan. In the Middle Ages Manicheisms core beliefs were preached by
the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars. The latter flourished greatly, especially in the south of
France, until they perished in the fires of the Inquisition and of a twenty-year Crusade
summoned by Pope Innocent III. Perhaps a million died in all. There is even a small neo-
Manichean movement in America today.
Manicheisms principal features included a dualism even more rigid than that of
Zoroastrianism (wherein the good and evil powers are brothers); a remarkably severe asceticism
for those who would practice it fully (the perfecti); and a canon of holy scriptures including texts
composed by the founder himself.
In colorful, extravagant and sometimes obscene myths the Manichees portrayed the world
as a battleground between two independent and coequal forces, Lords of Light and Darkness.
As the result of an invasion of the Lord of Lights realm by minions of the archon of Darkness,
in man (as indeed in all material things) bits of Light are trapped in the foul embrace of matter,
itself a stuff of Darkness. Salvation for us therefore consists in the liberation of our Light and in
its return to the realm of the Lord of Light. This can only come to pass through a rigorously
ascetic life-style founded on knowledge, gnosis, of our conditions origins and nature.
Augustine, the child of a pagan father and a devoutly Christian mother, became an auditor
in the Manichean religion at about the age of nineteen (c. 373). As a mere auditor, hearer, he
- 29 -
was dispensed from the most extreme of the rigors mandated for its small elite of full
practitioners. In the faith Augustine knew the latter, called the perfect or the chosen (electi),
were forbidden procreation (along with all other sexual activity); professional careers; material
possessions; and staple foods such as meat and wine. They were forbidden to engage even in the
cultivation and preparation of such foods as were approved, e.g. figs, which were thought to
contain a goodly part of the divine light that is everywhere entombed in matter.
Obviously, then, the Manichee elect could only exist if proscribed but necessary activities
(such as the preparation of ritual communal meals) were done on its behalf by the auditors. As
for the sins that these lesser souls thus incurred, they could be expiated in a later life. For a
faithful auditor, who needed only refrain from magic and idolatry while practicing a simple
moral code, might hope to be reincarnated in the body of a perfectus and win his salvation then.4
By 384, Augustine, now the newly appointed professor of rhetoric in the imperial city of
Milan, had become dissatisfied with Manicheism and he became a catechumen in the Catholic
Church. Just as, at this time, his parting from his long-time though never-named concubine may
have been seconded by ambitionfor marriage would not only comply with current papal
admonitions to quit ones concubine for a wife, but could bring valuable social connections as
wellso too there may have been a bit of policy in his becoming a catechumen. For Christianity
(or more precisely, a strain of it) had the vigorous patronage of the emperor.
Though at this time Augustines Manichean moorings were loosening, he was as yet not
wholly satisfied with Christianity either. But by August of 386 he had irrevocably converted to
the Christian faith as he had learned to interpret it from Ambrose.
What chiefly impelled him to quit the old faith for the new?
From the Lord of Light To the Light of God
Augustine tells us that he originally became a Manichee, and persisted in the sect for nine
years, because the Manichees promised him reasons in lieu of faith. They would make Truth
manifest. (In point of fact Augustine, who always seems concerned to minimize his Manichean
past, belonged for closer to eleven years). But, he goes on to say, it was also reason that kept
him from committing himself completely to Manicheism (OUB, 2). But when even the
celebrated and long-awaited teacher, Faustus of Milevis, was unable to resolve his problems with
Manichean doctrine, particularly those relating to the heavenly bodies, Augustine began to have
grave doubts that the Manichees epistemological promissory note would ever be paid off.
Some of the reasons he gives for abandoning the religion of Mani are also, like his literal-
minded objections to the sects astronomy, two-edged swords that in his hands seem to cut but
one way. For example, Augustine was scandalized at the immorality of some of the Manichean
perfecti with whom he had come into contact. What are those who should be dead to lust and
revolted at the mere thought of procreation doing whistling, and whinnying like stallions, at
shapely women passers-by? Is this how the true faith bears fruit in its elect?
4 See Serge Lancel, Saint Augustin (Paris: Fayard, 1999), pp. 61-62.
- 30 -
Now in later Christian writers, the subject of bogus sanctity among the Churchs elite is a
commonplace. For example, Boccaccio, in the third of the first night tales of the Decameron,
tells of a Jew who, visiting Rome and seeing at first hand the flagrant immorality of the Church
hierarchy, decides to convert! For he infers that only the favor of divine providence could be
responsible for preserving a Church whose holy ones are so unholy. Later, Montaigne, in the
early pages of the Apology for Raymond Sebond, will tell a like story. While on crusade, St.
Louis (King Louis IX of France), knowing too well the flagrant iniquities of the princes of the
Church, powerfully discourages a newly converted Tartar king from visiting the Pope and his
prelates. Not unnaturally, Louis is terrified lest the converts desire to find inspiration in His
Holiness and his satellites should backfire. But not to worry. When, finally, the Tartar king does
visit Rome, like the Jew in Boccaccio he too will conclude that nothing less than the miraculous
power of God could have preserved the Christian sheep-fold under such shepherds.
We may fairly suppose that immorality among the Christian elite was not unknown to
Augustine. Yet he never refers to Christians failings as a by its fruits you shall know it
aspersion on the faith.
Augustine taxes the Manichees with characterizing God in a way that was unworthy of real
divinity. For the substance of God (Light) has become entangled with, and hence corrupted by,
matter, the foul substance of evil (Conf. 3.10). But in the same work he will mention a special
case of this very problem that would seem to tell against the Christians. Did not their doctrine of
the Incarnation mean that God, because born in the flesh, would be defiled by flesh? (5.10).
Though Christians, unlike Manichees, were not compelled to view matter as inherently foul,
nonetheless for God to take on flesh is to stoop indeedindeed, for him to stoop so low will be
used to show that his love and mercy are without stint or limit.
In a more irreverent vein, we may recall that Manichee dietary injunctions would have the
faithful eat as much of the substance of the Lord of Light as they could at their ritual mealsfor
example, by consuming figs, held to be particularly rich in captive Light. Augustine will find this
not only an unworthy characterization of divinity but an absurd one. He will ridicule the
Manichees consumption of figs and consequent belching forth of bits of God (3.10). But to
understand how this would strike a pious Manichee, a Christian would need only imagine similar
witticisms at the expense of the Christian ritual meal where, in communion, the substance of the
Lord in toto is consumed by the faithful.
Under the influence of Academic skepticism, a philosophy that calls all in doubt and so by
rights should function as a kind of universal belief-solvent, Augustine allowed to dissolve his
commitment to Manichean dogma to dissolve. But he will not pour out the solvent of
skepticism on the bedrock of Christian teaching that he learned over his mothers knee, and in
particular on his conviction that where truth is, there Christ will be. That will remain untouched
and inviolate.5
At the time he was wobbling in his Manichee orbit, Augustines cardinal objection to
Christian teaching lay in the apparent failure of Scripture, when understood according to the
5 The same point is made by Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1967), p. 80. Cf.
Confessions 3.5 and 5.14 for the ever unshakeable standing of Christ with Augustine.
- 31 -
letter, to speak fittingly of God and his elect. For example, how could the Old Testament
patriarchs enjoy the highest divine favor notwithstanding their unbridled sexual
concupiscenceseven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, indeed! For shame,
Solomon! But on his arriving in Milan he began to attend the sermons of St. Ambrose in which
the Old Testament was expounded to him as edifying allegory.
. . . when I opened up my heart to receive the eloquence with which he
spoke, there likewise entered, though only by degrees, the truths that he
spoke. I now judged that the Christian faith, for which I though nothing
could be said against the Manichean objectors, could be maintained without
being ashamed of it. This was especially the case after I had heard various
passages in the Old Testament explained, most often by way of allegory, by
which I was killed when I understood them according to the letter . . . Yet
for all that I did not now think that the Christian way must be held to by
myself, just because it could have its learned defenders who would fully and
not absurdly refute objections made to it. Nor did I think that what I
previously held was to be condemned, for both parties seemed to me to be
equal in their defenses. Thus while the Christian position did not seem to be
overthrown, neither did it appear to be the victor (Conf. 5.14).
But there remained still a stone of stumbling.
I then earnestly applied my mind to see if it were possible, by means of sure
arguments, to convict the Manicheans of falsity. For if I were only able to
conceive a spiritual substance, then forthwith all those stratagems would be
foiled and cast out of my mind. But this I was unable to do (Conf. 5.14).
When he became able to conceive how a substance might exist and yet be immaterialan
accomplishment whose first inspiration came likewise from Ambrose though its consummation
derived from his reading of the Neoplatoniststhen nothing stood between Augustine and
commitment to Christianity but his self-will. And this, as all know, was finally vanquished by the
voice as of a child calling to him in the garden, bidding him Take up and read, and the
piercingly apt words of Scripture on which his eyes then fell.
I grabbed it, opened it and read in silence that chapter on which my eyes first
fell: Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not
in strife and envying ; but put you on the Lord Jesus Christ and make not
provision for the flesh and its lusts. Nor did I wish to read further, nor was
there need. Indeed immediately I reached the end of this sentence all
shadows of doubt fled away as if before a tranquil light that infused my heart
(Conf. 8.12).
Here we find Augustine, whose long liaison with a common law wife would have barred his
passage into the Manichean elite, fired with the certainty that this scriptural passage was
providentially set by God before him. Now at last the man whose low-status, common law wife
would have barred him from membership in the Manichean elite felt able, for the first time, to
renounce the flesh and its lusts.
- 32 -
But even here, in relying on the chapter on which my eyes first fell, we find Augustine
choosing to show a partiality. Earlier in the Confessions he had told us how his faith in astrology
was sapped by an old and disillusioned former practitioner.
When I enquired of him why it was true that so many of the things that they
[the astrologers] foretold turned out to be true, he answered, as far as he
could, that the power of chance, which is diffused everywhere throughout
the nature of things, brings this about. If a man consults at random the pages
of some poet who sings and thinks of things far different, a verse often
appears that is wonderfully appropriate to the business at hand. It is not to
be marveled at, then if . . . there should be uttered, not by art but by chance,
something relevant to the affairs and deeds of the questioner (Conf. 4.3).
Yet the possibility that alighting on just that text in the garden could be mere chance is not
for a moment entertained by Augustine. Would a more equitable reasoner have entertained it as
not only possible but, as a natural rather than a supernatural explanation, inherently more likely?
Of this too more anon.
Finally, although we do not know of his mistress being vouchsafed a revelation in a garden,
a like moral result ensued for her. For we are told that, on being sent away by Augustine, she
resolved to swear off men for good. This is always understood as high compliment to him. No
other love could match what she had with him and so, though a mere consort, she would play
the univira (one-woman man), a widow pledged never to remarry. But on the less charitable
hypothesis that Augustine had soured her on men forever, her resolve would appear rather less
complimentary.
On Geese That Are Swans
And so, in the event, Augustine became a Christian. But again, might he have remained a
Manichee with as good reason? Might he not have triumphantly defended his old creed had he
chosen to employ the resources, particularly the allegorical interpretation of troublesome texts
with which he chose to defend the new?
On the face of it there is no reason why not. Clearly his strongest objections to Manichee
dogmafalse accounts of the heavenly bodies and vexing descriptions of God and evil as
corporeal massescould have been construed as figures implying a plethora of more exalted
meanings. Christians were wont to tax the Manichees with methodological bad faith when the
latter rejected as spurious some New Testament passage that jarred with Manis revelation. To
this the Manichees made the plausible reply that their way of dealing with the texts in question
was no more arbitrary than the Christians practice of downplaying elements of the Old
Testament whenever it seemed convenient.6
In fact, when explaining Old Testament descriptions of the heavens, Augustine is very
willing to understand them figuratively so that they may not contradict each other. Is the sky a
skin or a vaulted chamber? Perhaps both of these, skin and vault, can be understood
6 Cf. George Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism (AMS, 1965) p. 126.
- 33 -
figuratively; how both could be true literally must be looked into, however (On Genesis
according to the Letter, 2.9).
It would seem, then, manifestly ad hoc for Augustine to restrict the saving device of
allegorical interpretation to Christian texts. But perhaps this is mere seeming. For was allegorical
interpretation an option that was really open to orthodox Manichees, or was it an article of faith
for them that the revelation of Mani must be understood as literally true? Augustine tells us that
this was indeed the case.
You preach especially that Mani came last for this reason: not to speak in
figures but to explain them, so that having unlocked the figures of the
ancients by his narrations and the clear light of his arguments he should be
hidden by no figures. You add this reason for his presumption, that clearly
the ancients who saw, spoke, or enacted figures knew that he would come
last and that by him all would be explained. He however, knowing that no
one would come after him, wove no allegorical obscurities into his teaching
(Against Faustus 15.6).
Yet, it is far from clear that the Manicheism of Augustines day ruled out allegorical
interpretation. Some scholars consider that understanding Mani in a highly figurative sense was
not only permissible but necessary given the form of Manis texts. As George Widengren put it,
[Mani] employed all the symbols, similes, and allegories of the gnostic language to give his
preaching life and colour. . . . Fascinated, indeed almost obsessed, by obscene myths, he turned
to them again and again. . . .7 In the nineteenth century, Albert Newman found the literal sense
so inadequate as to imperil understanding of what Mani was really teaching: The highly poetical
and mythological form which Mani gave to his speculations renders it exceedingly difficult to
arrive at assured results with reference to fundamental principles.8
But although the Manichean stories cry aloud to the modern reader for figurative
interpretationfor how could such fanciful and coarse tales be taken literally by us?it does
not follow that Manis followers so understood them. And so, F. C. Burkitt maintained that
[W]e must not . . . regard Manis cosmological interpretations as allegories. Fantastic as Manis
Gods or Angels may be, it is clear that he and his disciples believed in them as real. . . . As
historians we must not treat as allegories the tales of the Primal Man and the rest of the
Manichaean mythology because to us with our modern scientific conceptions of the material
universe they sound silly and bizarre.9
With this insight in mind, perhaps we may do best to believe Augustines assertion that the
Manichees preached that Mani claimed to explain figures and not to use them. But Augustines
own view of the matter, which is the point at issue when it comes to analyzing his decision to
forego allegorical interpretation, seems to have been quite different. Thus, of the Manichees
chief teaching he will say: I did not agree with them [that the light seen by the eyes should be
7 Ibid. p. 142.
8 A. Newman, Introduction to Augustines anti-Manichean writings in A Select Library of the Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1st Series, IV, p. 10.
9 F. C. Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees (Cambridge, 1925) p. 21.
- 34 -
worshipped as highest godhood], but I thought that they hid something great with veils that at
some time to come they would open (On the Blessed Life 1.4).
In short, while a Manichee Augustine was effectively travelling in hope, thinking the very
crux of its literal teaching to be but a figure that would later be unriddled so as to reveal a
meaning more exalted. Thus, whether or not an unimpeachably orthodox Manichee could
expand his creed allegorically, it seems clear that Augustine felt that he could. But it is also clear
that, for him, Manicheism never fulfilled its promise of providing clear reasons. It was so little
given to philosophical argument, so little scientific even in a wide sense, that modern scholars
join its ancient detractors in remarking on it. Widengren even suggests that Mani, a revelation
bearer rather than a thinker, would have found Aristotelian logic, including the principle of non-
contradiction, to be alien and opaque!10 We can see that Augustine came to a like conclusion
from his complaints as a Christian that Manicheism was a childish superstition; that its
doctrine shed no light but was itself a darkness; and that he had believed, not in men who
taught, but in men who ordered obedience (On the Blessed Life 1.4).
And yet, as a determined and resourceful exegete, could he not have read something refined
and exalted even into the childish superstition of Mani? Is it not, after all, a boast of the New
Testament writers that the evangel seems folly to the wise and that the Lord resists the proud
(cf. Jas. 4.6, I Peter 5:5)? (This is a point so important for Augustine that he will place these
words in the first few lines of the Confessions.) Why should not the Gospel of Mani do likewise?
There is an old saw that wryly renders the idea of self-deluded partialityas in the case, say,
of doting parents whose unbridled fondness beguiles them into thinking their unexceptional
spawn to be matchless paragons. (Readers acquainted with Harry Potters step-parents will not
be at a loss for an example.) They thought all their geese were swans. Was Christianity
Augustines goose that was a swan?
The Heart Has Its Reasons
On the whole, I think not. So far as reasoning is concerned, Augustine might indeed have
shored up his belief in Manicheism by means of devices such as allegorical interpretation had he
been bound and determined to do sohad he, in fact, chosen to defend it with the vigor with
which he later repulsed attacks on Catholic orthodoxy. But he felt, and seems to have seen, that
reason is more than reasoning, and his determination to defend to the utmost Christian but not
Manichee belief can be seen quite rational in a large sensethough perhaps a troubling one.
In the final analysis, what decided Augustine upon Christian belief was, more than anything,
the conviction of certainty that it alone bestowed on himor better, on his heart, keeping in
mind that for Augustine, as for the Biblical authors and for Pascal, the human heart is
profoundly intellective. The heart has its reasons that reason does not know. It is the inmost
self with its own tongue for speaking, ears for hearing, and eyes for seeing. And for Augustine it
was Christian belief alone that came to have a force of conviction, an effulgent certainty, that left
10 For some ancient criticism along with the authors own appreciation of Manis level of
ratiocination see Widengren pp. 135-144.
- 35 -
his heart nothing more to desirephenomenon of the kind that Nietzsche would later call
proof by power.
Augustine is explicit that complete certainty is what he always sought, even during his brief
flirtation with skepticism. Of that time he says: I held back my heart from all assent, fearing to
fall headlong, and I perished all the more from the suspense [suspension of judgment]. So that I
should be certain, I wished to be made as sure of the things I could not see as I was certain that
seven and three make ten. (Conf. 6.4; cf. 5.14, end).
This is the criterionor should we say longing?that, as we have seen, finally found
fulfillment in the garden: Nor did I wish to read further, nor was there need. Indeed
immediately I reached the end of this sentence all shadows of doubt fled away as if before a
tranquil light that infused my heart. (8.12).
Perhaps Augustines rejection of Manicheism was indeed seconded by the bar his
concubinage would have opposed to his being numbered among its elect. But be this as it may,
clearly the Manichean Lord of Lightpassive, victim of a surprise attack by the Archons of
Darkness, mutable, his substance torn asunder, contaminated, made prisoner in matteris, at
the end of the day, far too weak to command the passionate worship Augustine longed to give,
or to function as guarantor for the kind of certitude he craved.
As to the matter of which sacred texts were to be defended to the utmost, and which
allowed to fall, here too we may infer a crucial behind-the-scenes role for the heart. Augustine
believed that if we would hear all that a text can say to us, we must approach it with charity and
in a docile spirit, and not filled with animosity or contentiousness (OUB, 13-14). After nine years
of trying, he may well have felt he had made fair trial of Manichee text and teaching, and that
they would always leave a residue of doubt in the heart.
Perhaps the greatest questionnot only for Augustine in his context but for would-be
knowers in any domainis one that, though usually unspoken, is always in the background:
who or what will hold the heart and make it stand still? (Conf. 11.11). When do you know that
you know? When is conviction no longer provisional, no longer subject to correction by future
experience or reflection? When does one reach the point where the prospect of trading up to
a better way of thinking simply no longer presents itself? When does belief leave the dock and,
once and for all, assume the judges chair?
Need we say that Augustine was well aware of the problem of delusive certainty? It is a state
much to be feared inasmuch as it not only deceives us but, by quelling all desire for future
searching, leaves us (to use a Scholastic phrase) immutably confirmed in error. As he says to
Honoratus, a friend from his student days who became a Manichee under his urging, Nothing
is more easy, my dearest friend, than for one to not only say, but to think, that he has found out
the truth (OUB, 1). So by what right can Augustine be certain of certainty itself? (The question
is especially acute in the case of a Christian certainty that holds our intellects to have been
darkened by original sin!).
Non-delusive certainty can only come from a Light that, once seen, makes itself inexorably
known for what it is. In its effulgence it cannot be mistaken for anything else, nor anything else
for it. It is quite simply unique.
- 36 -
. . . I entered deep within myself and I saw by the souls eye, of whatever kind
it was, an unchangeable Light above that same eye of my soul, above my
mind. . . . Nor was It above my mind as oil is above water or sky above earth;
It was above because It made me, and I was below because I had been made
by It. [A]nd who knows It knows eternity. . . . And you cried out from afar: I
am who am. And I heard as one who listens in the heart. Nor was there
anything on account of which I might doubt. And it would have been easier
to doubt that I am alive than to be in doubt whether Truth might not exist . .
. (Conf. 7.10).
What Augustine is describing here could be understood as an earthly analogue of the
certainty that would be felt in the Beatific vision by the blessed in Heaven. Absent such a
certainty, even they could be gnawed by doubt and fearful that, though they think they see God,
in reality mocking infernal powers are be beguiling them with a soon-to-be-lifted illusion. (Think
Descartes malin gnie!).
Of course, one can say that all of this is just too ingenuouseven if perhaps charmingly
soand fraught with the gravest peril of never-ending self-delusion. But in point of fact, can
one proceed otherwise than Augustine didor can one only feign to? How can we not take as
good epistemological coin a certainty so overwhelming that, in point of fact, it leaves no room at
all for doubta certainty of which we could truly say it would have been easier to doubt that I
am alive?
As for Augustine, even if he was making a virtue of necessity, there is nonetheless a
profound consistency to his views. For him, as Romano Guardini observed, there is an
elemental intimacy in all being . . . . All existence comes from God, is governed by its reflection
of Him, is permeated by His love. . . all that exists stands as a whole within His objective
intimacy, in the embrace of His significance and love. . . . Mans heart is the realm of that
attuned awareness that responds to this.11 In short, for the believer there is a pre-established
harmony between the knower and the knownboth are cut from the same cloth insofar as
both are divine reflections. At the level of being they are brothers, scions of the Light that
illumines the one and pierces the other. God is, to evoke the syllogism, the universal Middle
Term that makes knowledge possible.
At the end of the day, those things that we cannot but believe will inevitably pass for what
we ought to believe. In other words, pace Descartes, our rationality will consist in arguing and
proceeding from those things of whose truth we are irresistibly convincedand not from only
those things that an abstract, rational-being-as-such might be compelled to grant under any and
all conditions. (Keep in mind, too, that our conceptions of the latter will be inescapably
conditioned by the former.)
And so, when Augustine, foreshadowing Luthers Here I stand! I cannot do otherwise!
took his stand for God and Providence, he simply acknowledged that, in his sight, these were
the overwhelmingly evident interpretations of the text of the world. To deny them would have
been to say that he did not see things as in fact he did see themto lie. Or, rather, to deny them
11 The Conversion of St. Augustine (Westminster: 1960), tr. by E. Briefs, p. 63. (German edition 1950.)
- 37 -
would have been to feign that he was not Augustine but another, one whose heart and inner eye
saw otherwise.
In fine, notwithstanding first appearance, it was by no means an arbitrary or irrational choice
that Augustine made between Manicheism, which always left his heart with doubts and
dubieties, and Christian belief, which conferred upon him a certainty that left the heart nothing
more to desire. Let us even suppose that he did not, as he thought, come into possession of
pristine and primordial Truth, but rather embraced the worst of illusionsone that will brook
no denial. (Luthers concluding God help me, amen! is a profoundly prudent last safeguard for
one on the verge of a such an epistemological precipice.) Even so, his proceeding was a
profoundly reasonable one. For when all is said and done, our reason, like the rest of our
humanity, is part and parcel, not of an ideal world, but of what the French call the world as it
goes, le monde comme il vaa world whose bedrock is unanswerable brute fact, a world in
which what we call our ought will be conditioned by our is. Augustine pays implicit homage to
this state of affairs when he thinks and acts in accordance with a view that, illusion or not, is
bound up in our very selves: that what wholly satisfies the heart is Truth alone.
- 38 -
FIRE IN THE DARK University of Rochester Press, 2005
Essays on Pascal's Penses ISBN 13: 978-1-58046-187-0
and Provinciales
166 pp. | $75.00 | hardback
Charles Natoli
. . . an excellent example of scholarship and of philosophy,

thus an address to the circle of Pascal scholars . . . but also
to any serious reader. In this book what was once known as
the Republic of Letters survives. . . .
MichaelPlatt,ReviewofMetaphysics
This is a wellcrafted, erudite and engaging study. . . . [It]

should find a broad audience among students of
philosophy, the history or religion, theology, and French
letters and culture.
SusanReadBaker,SeventeenthCenturyNews
Perfectly at home in the literary, theological, and

philosophical fields that inform seventeenthcentury
France, Charles Natoli discusses Pascal's difficult and
fascinating writings with great clarity and insight, and with
the justesse these writings deserve. The essays are witty
and enjoyable to read. Original in their discussion of
Pascal's methods and of their potential limits, these essays
too ask the reader to be mindful of Pascal's depth and value
for our 21st century world.
JohnA.Gallucci,ColgateUniversity.
Charles Natoli, PhD, is Chair
of Department of Philosophy In this careful and learned study, Natoli burrows into a key
and Classical Studies at St. tension of our time: the mystery of faith and how one
John Fisher College. He is proves the grounds for that faith.
also the author of Nietzsche SaraMelzer,UCLA
and Pascal on Christianity AuthorofDiscoursesoftheFall:AStudyofPascal'sPenses
(1985).
In this remarkable analysis of Pascal's theodicy and the
difficulties it presents to modern readers, Natoli joins
theological, philosophical, and literary approaches to the
Penses and Provincial Letters.
DavidWetsel,ArizonaStateUniversity,author ofPascal
andDisbelief.
Publishers URL: www.urpress.com

A SPECIAL CALL FOR PAPERS
in honor of
The Rev. Dr. John L. McKenzie
American Theological Inquiry (ATI) is seeking interested parties to contribute papers for a
special journal edition in honor of the life and work of The Rev. Dr. John L. McKenzie (see
bio below). We are hoping to publish this special issue as Volume 3, Issue 1; January 15,
2010 to generally coincide with the reprinting of McKenzies magisterial work, The Two-
Edged Sword: An Interpretation of the Old Testament (to be published by Wipf & Stock).
While papers dealing directly with McKenzies work are certainly welcome, Fr. McKenzie
himself need not be the central foci. Rather, papers dealing with themes that were important
to Fr. McKenzie are principally desired (e.g., Old Testament and Ancient Near-East religious
studies, biblical historiography and cosmogony, ecclesiology, culture, etc.). We do, however,
ask that such papers make at least one reference to one or more of McKenzies works.
Submissions: To submit a paper, or an idea, please contact ATIs General Editor, Dr.
Gannon Murphy, directly at gmurphy@atijournal.org, or 952-426-0733. Submissions will
be reviewed through November 1, 2009.
The Rev. Dr. John L. McKenzie

John L. McKenzie (1910-1991) was a biblical scholar specializing in the Old Testament. He
was an American leader among post-World War II Catholic scholars and highly influential in
the beginnings and orientation of modern biblical scholarship in the 1940-50s. Fr.
McKenzies work had a tremendous influence in orienting Catholic thinkers to the Old
Testament using modern biblical scholarship and tools; he helped to make respectable
among Catholic bishops and scholars what had previously been regarded as largely a
mainline Protestant enterprise. Indeed, his mid-1950s introduction to the Old Testament
was controversial enough at the time to have been held up for three years by church
authorities. The Jesuit scholar was also an outspoken pacifist and critic of the powerful, be
they ecclesiastical or civil. Fr. McKenzie accused the church of tampering with the internal
intent of Jesus words in order to accommodate violence.
Dr. McKenzie was the first Catholic to be president of the Society of Biblical Literature, was
a past president of the Catholic Biblical Association, participant in archaeological
investigations at Ben Zur and Gideon, president of Clergy and Laity Concerned, and
received numerous honors. His writings include: The Two-Edged Sword, Dictionary of the
Bible, The Civilization of Christianity, The Power and the Wisdom, The Theology of the
Old Testament, and regular articles in Catholic Biblical Quarterly and The Critic. Fr.
McKenzie taught for most of his academic career at Loyola University of Chicago,
University of Chicago, Notre Dame, and DePaul University.
JESUS ON THE BIG SCREEN1

Stephen Nichols2
Before they can be anything else, American movies are a product.
Sidney Pollack
Every Jesus film has been about the current moment.
Stephenson Humphries-Brooks
This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration
of the eternal spiritual conflict.
Martin Scorsese, Opening To The Last Temptation Of Christ
Based on a survey of Hollywood insiders, Entertainment Weekly declared Mel Gibsons
The Passion of the Christ the most controversial film of all time. But, surprisingly, for a
Hollywood flick, the ruckus was not being raised by the Religious Right or the stalwarts of
evangelicalism. Instead, the religious conservatives were buying tickets by the gross and
renting out whole theaters for evangelistic outreaches. Gibson, a committed Roman
Catholic, had found some good friends in unlikely places. He also stirred up quite a
controversy.3
Controversial Saviors
The controversy over The Passion movie seemed to come in two veins. First, was the
violencethe R rating gave many of those aforementioned evangelicals pause and sent
their leaders scrambling for damage-control spin. Second, and this far outshadowed matters
of violence, was the charge of anti-Semitism. Some of the truly challenging questions that
the film and the phenomenon it spurred raise, however, have been eclipsed by these issues
that have garnered the headlines of the protest. American evangelicals on the whole tended
to applaud the movie and to quickly seize the opportunity the movie presented for
evangelism, all the while giving little critical thought to what they were doing and what they
were watching. Roman Catholics defended the movieand Gibson for that matter. The
clearest defense came straight from the Vatican by Archbishop John Foley, president of the
1 From chapter 6 of Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to The Passion
of the Christ (2008). Reprinted her by kind permission of IVP Academic.

2 Stephen Nichols, PhD, is professor of theology at Lancaster Bible College and Graduate School.
His publications include The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World (Crossway,
2007); Heaven on Earth: Capturing Jonathan Edwardss Vision of Living in Between (Crossway,
2006), and Pages from Church History: A Guided Tour of Christian Classics (P&R Publishing, 2006).
3 Entertainment Weekly, June 9, 2006. The cover story runs The Most Controversial Movies
Ever, with The Passion of the Christ taking the no. 1 spot. The November 23, 2005, edition of the
movie magazine named The Passion among the top fourteen most notorious hot-button movies
ever, along with The Da Vinci Code and Martin Scorseses The Last Temptation of Christ.
- 41 -
Pontifical Council for Social Communications, If theyre critical of the film, Foley
reasoned, they would be critical of the Gospel.4
The ironies abound when considering The Passion phenomenon. Evangelical
organizations like Dobsons Focus on the Family often bemoaned Hollywoods offerings,
especially chastising the industry for its depictions of violence. Yet from the moment these
same leaders were privy to a personal screening they became the films biggest cheerleaders.
Neal King expresses this irony similarly:
Evangelicals teach each other how to be evangelicals by recounting the ills
of current cinema, the movies of craven Hollywood, and the poisonous
effects of moviegoing on their children. . . . However, the prerelease
marketing of The Passion of the Christ inspired the same groups to book
whole theaters and to share its religious ritual. Christian leaders also
seemed to enjoy cozying up to Gibson, perhaps relishing being a part of
that world even for a moment, despite the fact that in the past such
associations of evangelicals with movie stars and moguls were to be
shunned.
Moving away from film to the broader cultural landscape can be
instructive. Evangelicals and their fundamentalist forebears had been in a
cultural semiretreat from the 1920s on. In the 1950s Billy Graham gained
a seat at the table for evangelicals in American culture. In the 1970s
evangelicals and some fundamentalists began battling for a seat at the
table in American politics. In 2000 they had one, with a professing
evangelical seated at the head of the table in the White House.
Evangelicals began relishing these new roles, no longer the cultural
outcasts they once were. Sitting next to Gibson for private screenings only
furthered their sense of having arrived.5
Evangelicals and fundamentalists alike supported the movie for evangelistic reasons.
Some congregations and other institutions of a more fundamentalist stripe who impose
movie restrictions on their constituents lifted the ban, granting a special dispensation for The
Passion, citing evangelistic purposes as the reason. This too, however, is a surprising irony
given Gibsons explicit and the movies implicit Roman Catholicism. Again, many of the
more conservative evangelicals seemed to have no problem embracing Gibson during the
films run of success, while otherwise eschewing such evangelical and Roman Catholic
bipartisanship. David Neff, a participant in a private screening cohosted by Gibson and
4 For a summary of the controversy surrounding the film, see Mark Silk, Almost a Culture War:
The Making of The Passion Controversy, After the Passion Is Gone: American Religious
Consequences, ed. J. Shawn Landres and Michael Berenbaum (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield,
2004), pp. 23-34; Archbishop Foley is cited in Steven D. Greydanus, The Vatican Film ListTen
Years Later, <www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/vaticanfilmlist.html>.
5 Neal King, Truth at Last: Evangelical Communities Embrace The Passion of the Christ, in Re-
Viewing the Passion: Mel Gibsons Film and Its Critics, ed. S. Brent Plate (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004), p. 151.
- 42 -
Willow Creeks Bill Hybels, also points to this surprising evangelical enthusiasm given
that the movie was shaped from start to finish by a devout Roman Catholic and by an
almost medieval Catholic vision. Neff then explains in part how Evangelicals have not
found that a problem, by explaining that overall, the theology of the film articulates very
powerful themes that have been important to all classical Christians.6
Leslie Smith suspects there are other factors at work, as well, in explaining the embrace
of the movie by evangelicals. She too takes notice of the movies violence and Gibsons
history of making violent films, and of the movies Roman Catholic tendencies as well as
Gibsons explicit Catholicism. All of which leaves her with the question, Why did
evangelical Protestants so eagerly embrace [this] film? Her answer is a complex one: It
exemplifies many of the qualities of modern American evangelical culture: it privileges
emotional experience, it appeals to traditional American consumerism, and it asserts
supernaturalism and moral absolutism in a rationalistic, postmodern society. Her first point
concerning emotional experience is worth unpacking. Smith later notes, while attending a
Bible study built around Lee Strobels accompanying workbook for the movie Experiencing
the Passion: The people with whom I spoke gauged The Passions [biblical] accuracy not by
measures of specific historicity but rather by the emotions the film evoked in the viewer and
the extent to which it could lead to a conversion experience. To put it simply, this group of
evangelicals assessed the realism of the film by its emotional impact. She then quotes from
Strobels workbook: For the first time in my life I felt as if I were really experiencing what
Jesus had endured. Smith adds to her list of experientialism, consumerismbased on the
marketing campaign and related product lines the film spurred, not to mention its $370
million grossand the tension with the larger culture: The attention paid to The Passion
was alluring to evangelicals because of the legitimacy that it granted both their group and
their message.7
Evangelical leaders and their constituents applauded the film for its raw authenticity and
verity in retelling the biblical narratives. So true was it to Scripture that the movie even ran
the dialogue in Aramaic and Latin. Yet from the opening scene, Gibson nevertheless
succumbed to the temptation facing all would-be cinematographers of Jesus: going beyond
the biblical account. As David Neff pointed out, when the biblical narrative let him down,
Gibson turned to Anne Catherine Emmerichs Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ to
help the drama along. Gibson could also rely on his own creativity, so he has a playful Jesus
flicking water in his mothers face as she offers him a washbasin to clean up before lunch.
This touching scene is nothing less than gut-wrenching, for we know the trial that Mary will
face in watching helplessly as her son is taken and suffers and dies a too-cruel death. And it
is in the end that the violence of the film takes over. To be sure, the historical Jesus trial was
unjust, his precrucifixion torture brutal and the crucifixion itself despicable beyond
6 David Neff, The Passion of Mel Gibson: Why Evangelicals Are Cheering a Movie with
Profoundly Catholic Sensibilities, Christianity Today, March 2004.

7 Leslie E. Smith, Living in the World, But Not of the World: Understanding Evangelical Support
for The Passion of the Christ, in After the Passion Is Gone, ed. J. Shawn Landres and Michael
Berenbaum (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), pp. 48, 51, 56.
- 43 -
comprehension. But in reading the Gospel narratives, we are hard-pressed to find the
graphic depiction of violence that the movie relentlessly heaps upon its viewers. Gibson not
only forces his viewers to watch, he forces them to linger through his relentless recourse to
slow motion, a technique film critics tend to see as not only amateurish but also deeply
manipulative.
Gibson indeed succeeds in producing a visceral reaction, confirmed by Lee Strobels
aforementioned confession that he never experienced the true passion of Christ until he
watched the movie. Donald Hodel, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, similarly
chimed: The Passion was profoundly compelling and affecting. The quality and realism of
the acting, the setting, adherence to the historical record, its intensity and pacing all amount
to an outstanding and moving film. . . . For both Christian believers and for non-believers
The Passion will penetrate the mind, heart and soul in ways that can only be memorable and
positive. Paul Crouch Jr. of Trinity Broadcasting Network offers his endorsement, It is
without a doubt the best portrayal of Christ and the Crucifixion Ive ever seen. In fact, it
makes you want to take all Biblical epics and most Christian films and throw them right in
the trash. Greg Laurie of Harvest Crusades stresses the evangelistic appeal of the movie,
calling it the greatest moment of the century: I believe The Passion of the Christ may well
be one of the most powerful evangelistic tools of the last 100 years, because you have never
seen the story of Jesus portrayed this vividly before.8
But what is the movies impact now, even just a few years later? Or what was the average
moviegoers reaction even by the time they made it back to their car in the parking lot?
People magazine dubbed James Caviezel, who starred as Jesus, the Sexiest Savior in its
2004 annual issue devoted to the sexiest men alive. Its unlikely that this was the cultural
impact that evangelical leaders hoped for.
For all of its pungent reaction at the time, the ongoing effects of The Passion seem
flaccid. The media and broader cultural circles have long since moved on. Posters may be
found rolled up here and there in the corner of youth pastors offices, but even the church
has lost its passion for the movie. The movie, it appears, has gone the way of all fads, a
bright meteor that became a bit of a spent force. The Passion, however, wasnt the only
controversial Jesus film. In fact, it might come as a surprise that two of the most
controversial films of the twentieth century both took as their subject the age-old story of
Christ. And thats about the only thing these two filmsGibsons The Passion and Martin
Scorseses The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)have in common. The controversy over
Scorseses film came from the side of the aisle that lined up behind Gibson. The American
Council of Catholic Bishops organized protests, as did evangelical leaders. Bill Bright went
so far as to offer ten million dollars to Universal Studios to destroy the movie. Hollywood
insiders seemed to think that all of that protest only served to spur on box office tickets and
draw attention to a movie that otherwise would have had a mediocre showing. The boycotts,
however, came from the deeply rooted belief that the movie fell nowhere shy of blasphemy.
8 These endorsements, as well as others by evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders alike may be
found at The Passion of the Christ: Assessment by Conservative Christians, <www.religioustoler

ance.org/chrgibson3.htm>.
- 44 -
Even the consultant hired by Universal Pictures to counter all of the negative publicity
resigned three months before the movies release, citing the films blasphemous content as
one of the reasons.9
Not only do Jesus films have a controversial history, they also have a long one. The first
attempt to put Jesus on film came from the French Director Alice Guy, whose short, silent
film Jesus Before Pilate (Jesus Devant Pilate) came out in 1898. Americans would produce
their own short film in 1912, the Kalem Companys From the Manger to the Cross. But the
honor of producing the first full-length film goes to American movie legend Cecil B.
DeMille, who released the big-budget (for the time) silent film The King of Kings in 1927.
Jesus films took a hiatus until the 1960s. Since then, however, Jesus films have been made
with an impressive regularity. As Stephen Humphries-Brooks, an astute scholar of Jesus
films, observes of all of these silver screen portrayals of Christ, they tend to have more to say
about the cultural moment that produced them than the moment they wish to depict, the
moment captured on the page in the Gospels. In fact, it seems that all films depicting
historical events and all biopics suffer from anachronisms; they tend to reflect the times in
which the film was made as much as the times in which the film is set. It might not be too
much of a stretch that, for the most part, these Jesus films also have more to say about the
directors, producers and screenwriters than they have to say about the central figure of the
script. These problems seem to plague the effort of putting Jesus up on the big screen. To
borrow an oft-repeated mantra since Marshall McLuhan first coined it, the medium does
matter. He actually put it more strongly, The medium is the message. Jesus, as this chapter
argues, doesnt shoot well. Hes not a very good celluloid savior.10
This is not to suggest that nothing can be gained from the enterprise of converting the
Gospel accounts into film, evangelistically or otherwise. Some of these film projects have
been quite successful, which is to say they work. This is especially true of the 1979 Jesus film
and the Jesus Film Project, which occurs mostly out of the arena of commercial venues. But
putting Christ on the silver screen involves tradeoffsmany things can be lost in translation.
This chapter looks at this roughly one hundred year history of Jesus in American film,
from the silent 1912 From the Manger to the Cross: Jesus of Nazareth to the most
controversial film of all time, the 2004 The Passion, and even some 2006 additions to the
genre.
The Greatest Story Ever Told
The first attempt to put Jesus on the screen goes all the way back to 1898 with the silent
film Jesus Devant Pilate (Jesus Before Pilate). A full decade later an American silent film was
shot on location in Egypt and the Middle East, From the Manger to the Cross: Jesus of
Nazareth (1912). These films short scripts were taken directly from the Gospel accounts.
Jesus himself tended to be off camera, more present by allusion than by direct visual
9 W. Barnes Tatum, Jesus at the Movies: A Guide to the First Hundred Years (Santa Rosa, Calif.:
Polebridge Press, 1997), p. 163.

10 Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (Boston: MIT Press, 1964).
- 45 -
contact. Like other silent films, a few episodes would tick by before the words appeared on
the screen to let the audience know what was happening. Most of the dialogue comes
directly from the biblical text. Both films were placidly received as solemn and overly
reverential. Even audiences of silent black-and-white films wanted something more than
church on a silver screen. These audiences found their wishes coming true when no less than
the veritable Cecil B. DeMille released The King of Kings in 1927. This movie, like DeMilles
others, came with all the grandeur of old Hollywood.
Gibson may very well have taken a few pages from DeMilles playbook. DeMilles
colleague on the film, Jeremiah Millbank, saw the film as having evangelistic appeal. In his
autobiography, DeMille reveals, To this day Jeremiah Millbank has not taken a penny of
profit from The King of Kings: All his share in its continuing earnings goes to make and
distribute new prints of it, principally for use by churches and missionaries. DeMille
estimates that such efforts resulted in 800,000,000 people seeing the movie. In part those
numbers are due to the religious leaders that DeMille courted and then mobilized on behalf
of the film. Curiously, as with the lightning strikes during the filming of The Passion, events
occurred around the shooting that made people think the heavens themselves were
endorsing the film. In the case of The King of Kings, when doves were released to fly into
the sunset, they instead went straight by themselves to fly around the Cross of the Savior.
DeMille also credits the films success to H. B. Warners supernatural performance. All
my life, recalls DeMille, I have wondered how many people have been turned away from
Christianity by the effeminate, sanctimonious, machine made Christs of second rate so-called
art, which used to be thought good enough for Sunday schools. DeMille gave the
twentieth-century world a savior of virility, the same as the original Man of Nazareth
had. Bruce Barton, who turned Jesus into a businessman fit for the early twentieth century,
served as DeMilles theological consultant on the project. DeMilles The King of Kings
would set the gold standard. Some have even argued that this film proved so popular and
enduring that it was some time, literally decades, before anyone had the courage or the
reason to attempt another cinematic version of the life of Jesus.11
By the 1950s, however, filmmakers were ready to give it a try. Three movies in particular
hover around Jesus and the Gospels, Mervyn LeRoys Quo Vadis? (1951), Henry Kosters
The Robe (1953) and William Wylers Ben-Hur (1959), all three of which were originally
novels. These movies have Jesus off-stage, though central to the storyline and the main
characters. Quo Vadis? picks up the story after Christs death, following Peter through the
difficult persecutions of Neros reign. The Robe too deals with the conflict between Rome
and early Christianity by telling the story of Marcellus, the centurion who won Christs robe
at the foot of the cross. The story also moves along not only by political intrigue but also by
romance between Marcellus and Diana. Both he and Diana met their fate together, at the
hands of Caligula. Wylers Ben-Hur is subtitled A Tale of the Christ. In it, Jesus appears at a
distance, and the only two times he speaks, his face is off camera. Jesus nevertheless
11 Cecil B. DeMille, The Autobiography of Cecil B. DeMille, ed. Donald Hayne (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959), pp. 274-84; Richard C. Stern, Clayton N. Jefford and Guerric Debona,
Savior on the Silver Screen (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), p. 62.
- 46 -
functions as the overwhelming figure in the life of Judah Ben-Hur, played by none other
than Charlton Heston.
Having been emboldened by these attempts, in the 1960s not a few films returned Jesus
to center stage. Two in particular are Nicholas Rays King of Kings (1961) and George
Stevenss The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965). The title of the first is a nod to DeMille.
Otherwise, the film is pure 1960s. It offers a more human Jesus than that of DeMilles film.
This Jesus, the authors of Savior on the Silver Screen argue, is primarily a speaker of
sayings, not a worker of miracles . . . a rebel with a cause, who tries to bring about the
revolution through a message of peace. Max von Sydow, lending his gravitas, takes Jesus in
the opposite direction in The Greatest Story Ever Told. This cinematic telling of the greatest
story also racked up one of the greatest cast of characters, including Charlton Heston, Sidney
Poitier, John Wayne, Martin Landau and Angela Lansbury. This film and its stars seem bent
on portraying the ideas of Jesus over his action and over his sayings, and even over the
events of the Gospels. According to the authors of Savior on the Silver Screen, Jesus seems
to be the most Gnostic in this film. One scene alone proves this point. As Max von
Sydows Jesus presides over the table of the Last Supper, arms outstretched and angelically
backlit, he nearly appears to levitate. This is Jesus hovering on the Earth, his white robes
always pristine, not walking in the dust.12
Peter Hasenberg has noted that this moment of film history, like the broader culture of
the 1960s, emphasized (1) a dominance of the subjective point of view, (2) a critical view of
society, sometimes even with a strong political motive, and (3) a conscious and critical use of
conventional narrative and genre structures. All of these tenets directly affect Jesus and the
screens portrayal of him. The dominating subjective viewpoint allows the filmmakers or the
scriptwriters sensibilities to take over the Gospel portrayal. Hasenbergs second point, a
counterculture animus, also means that Jesus of the 1960s and 1970s takes on a hippie
persona, with the overthrowing of the moneychangers from the templethe rebel against
the establishmentreceiving significant attention. The third point, in effect, tells us that
these new Jesus films arent like the films of our fathers and grandfathers. These three tenets
also have the cumulative effect of allowing for more artistic license. Filmmakers were free to
roam beyond the Gospel accounts, and freely roam they did.13
Jesus films of the 1970s took the hippie Jesus to new heights and introduced the types of
controversies that would later encircle The Last Temptation and The Passion. The two in
particular are the musicals Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell, both from 1973. Two other
1970s Jesus films represent the ridiculous and the sublime. The latter is Franco Zeffirellis
Jesus of Nazareth (1977), while the former is Terry Joness Monty Pythons Life of Brian
(1979). Indeed, it was a strange decade. Zeffirellis film has been hailed as the greatest
cinematic achievement of portraying the life of Christ. That may very well be the case. One
thing for certain, at over six hours running time, it easily ranks as the longest. Zeffirellis
12Stern, Jefford and Debona, Savior on the Silver Screen, pp. 69, 145.
1311Peter Hasenberg, The Religious in Film: From The King of Kings to The Fisher King, in
New Image of Religious Film, ed. John R. May (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1997), p. 43.
- 47 -
directorial skill can be seen in just how riveting those six hours are. He seems to move
almost seamlessly between the locally situated story of the first-century Jesus and the
universal and perennial story that historically situated life tells. Then theres Monty Pythons
Jesus. The British comedy troupes cinematic portrayal met with all of the criticism directed
toward Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell. Despite its makers contentions that the films
acerbic wit was aimed at religious formalism and institutional Christianity, and not at Christ
himself and the Gospels, Catholics and evangelical Protestants took the film as nothing less
than blasphemous. The film actually isnt about Jesus; instead it tells the story of Brian, a
hapless comic figure whose life eerily intersects with that of Jesus.14
At least one biblical scholar, however, takes Terry Jones to be nobodys fool. Philip R.
Davies confessed, I have long been of the conviction that Monty Pythons Life of Brian is
an indispensable foundation to any students career in New Testament studies. (Welcome
words for me since I tend to tell my students that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is
indispensable for church history studies.) He tells them this because, in his view, the film
engages with a number of basic scholarly historical and theological issues. Davies may be
right, watching the film likely hones ones hermeneutical skills.15
In the 1980s came the not-very-popular but critically well-received Jesus of Montreal
(1989) by Denys Arcand. This is the classic story within a story; as the main character, Daniel
(Lothaire Bluteau), plays Jesus in a passion play in modern Montreal. He soon, however,
takes on a messiah complex, complete with an interesting twist on the well-worn cinematic
episode of throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. In this case exploitive directors
and movie financers are chased out of a theater as cameras and equipment are destroyed in a
fit of righteous indignation. Daniel eventually dies, from a bizarre accident, getting knocked
over while hanging on the cross playing Jesus in the passion play. Jesus of Montreal unfolds a
cleverly embedded story within a story that works on a number of levels. The film to
dominate the 1980s, however, was Martin Scorseses The Last Temptation of Christ. Here
too Scorsese unfolds a story within a story, as he tells the inner psychological struggle of
Jesus, played by William Defoe, alongside of episodes vaguely reminiscent of the biblical
story line.
Perhaps studios refrained from Jesus films in the 1990s in order to recover from The
Last Temptation. But some made-for-television movies stepped in. Kevin Connors Mary,
Mother of Jesus aired on NBC in 1999, the same year that Roger Youngs Jesus aired on CBS.
Both movies seemed to have the net effect of creating some controversial headlines, such as
Dueling Saviors: CBS, NBC Face Off This Season with Jesus Movies, in the Chicago Sun-
Times. Otherwise, they had little impact, reaching few viewers and garnering few other
headlines. Not so with the Jesus films so far in the 2000s. In fact, American Jesus films reach
14 For a discussion of The Life of Brian, see Stern, Jefford and Debona, Savior on the Silver
Screen, pp. 233-63.

15 Philip R. Davies, Life of Brian Research, Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third
SheffieldColloquium, ed. J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen Moore (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998), p. 400.
- 48 -
a crescendo in Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ (2004). His is not the only movie of
the first decade of the 2000s, however. In 2006 Jean-Claude La Marres Color of the Cross
(2006) opened with a modicum of controversy and ended with a mere sliver of the attention
and the profits of The Passion. La Marre was busy in this film, serving as its writer and
director, and taking on the lead role of Jesus, the first black Jesus, that is, in a major motion
picture. La Marres film set another precedent in making race the issue that put Jesus on the
cross. And then theres the much-hoped-for film by Catherine Hardwick, The Nativity Story
(2006). The film had significant commercial backing and courted the same evangelical
leaders that Gibson had. This film, however, had none of the controversy, offering a safe,
tame retelling of the biblical tale. It couldnt live up to Gibsons success, not only falling way
short of The Passions gross but also getting eclipsed by Gibsons Apocalypto (2006) that hit
theaters the same week as The Nativity Story opened.
This survey of the translations of the greatest story ever told to the silver screen raises a
number of significant points worth developing. First, American movies work best when
theres romance, a slight problem given the story line of Jesus. What American filmmakers,
scriptwriters and novelists lack in material, however, they more than compensate for through
creativity, inched along as they are by some developments in New Testament scholarship.
The likely suspect for adding the romantic intrigue to the story is Mary Magdalene. From the
days of Cecil B. DeMille, she has been well used for the part. She takes a rather strange route
to the role of leading lady. Mary Magdalene, however, isnt the only element of the story that
gets elaboration. The Gospel accounts in general disappoint if were looking for good,
cinematic material. Consequently, filmmakers and scriptwriters rush in where the canonical
Gospel writers feared to tread. The medium almost demands departure from the biblical
text.
Jesus films also reveal a tendency to transplant Jesus from his age to ours. Of course,
more than films do this. Sermons, theological works, even Bible translations do the same
things as these movies. The difference is the medium, which allows for a more intense
contextualization. While some films like Jesus of Montreal (1989) explicitly and blatantly
move Christ forward, other films, even ones sporting Aramaic dialogue, do it subtly. This
moving of Christ forward has a curious effect on our reading of the Gospels. Film is a
significantly powerful and influential medium, and has a tendency to overshadow our
perceptions and interpretations of the people and the events that films depict. Do people
think even a little bit differently about Nixon after watching Scorseses interpretation of him
(Nixon, 1995)? It might be the case that Jesus films, at least for the season they dominate the
discussion, tend to have a significant impact on popular-level hermeneutics, the way people
read the Gospel texts. Finally, Jesus films have difficulty, almost by definition, depicting the
hypostatic union, Christ as the God-man. Stern, Jefford and Debona make the point directly
when they charge that Jeffery Hunter, who plays Jesus in the 1961 film King of Kings surely
plays up Jesus humanity. And since then Jesus films have tended to emphasize the
humanity of Jesus. These four points emerge from the American Jesus films: the trumping of
Mary Magdalenes role, the virtual necessity of adding to the biblical story, the transplanting
- 49 -
of Jesus from his context to the context of the filmmaker and audience, and the (again
seemingly necessitated) emphasis on the humanity of Jesus. Each deserves some attention.16
Theres Something About Mary
Of all the supporting characters in the Jesus movies, one that has taken a rather
interesting road is Mary Magdalene. The biblical narrative actually tells us very little of Mary
Magdalene, but in the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great taught that she was a
prostitute. This requires some reading between the lines of the Gospel narratives and then
some additional filling-in to boot. First, we have to identify Mary Magdalene as the same
person who is the unnamed woman sinner who anointed Jesus feet with a precious
ointment kept in an alabaster box (Lk 7:37-39). Gregory was helped along by looking past
Luke 7 to Luke 8:2, which speaks of Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone
out. Of course, theres nothing in the text that demands the unnamed woman of Luke 7:37
is the Mary Magdalene mentioned in Luke 8:2. But while theres nothing in the text to make
the connection, the need for a good story does. In fact, Gregorys (over)interpretation of
Mary Magdalene is rather tame compared to what happens to her at the hands of other
interpreters. Theres a rich French tradition that has Mary capturing Jesus blood in the Holy
Grail and escaping to somewhere in France. Over time, the Holy Grail became understood
as code: Mary herself was the grail and the blood was in fact their love child, the bloodline of
Christ. All we need now is a blockbuster novel, turned into yet another movieThe Da
Vinci Codeand its off to the races. This attention and interpretation runs counter to the
sparse references to Mary Magdalene in the Gospels. As one writer has intoned, Mary
Magdalene wasnt bad, just interpreted that way.17
Mary Magdalenes history on the silver screen is also quite a ride. She actually opens Cecil
B. DeMilles The King of Kings, which he did on purpose to jolt audiences out of their
preconceptions with an opening scene that none of them would be expecting. Indeed,
surely none of them did expect it, and likely none of them were prepared for what they were
to see: Mary Magdalene looking rather seductive in her lavishly appointed courtyard villa
being admired by courtesans while she pets a tiger. She also, especially for 1920s film
standards, is dressed rather scantily and wearing an awful lot of makeup. Its easy to figure
out, in other words, her profession. Shes all abuzz at the news that Judas, one of her
admirers, has been bewitched by a carpenter from Nazareth. As the film progresses, she
finally encounters Jesus, who heals her and rescues her from her life of sin. DeMille
transforms the seven demons of Luke 8:2 into the seven deadly sins, each one leaving her as
rather phantom-like creatures. DeMille also uses her conversion as the tipping point for
Judas Iscariot. Apparently, Judas, found on Mary Magdalenes calling card, that he would no
longer be able to visit her now that she was converted. First it was Mary Magdalene who was
16 Stern, Jefford and Debona, Savior on the Silver Screen, p. 63.

17 Before Dan Browns novel The Da Vinci Code, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry
Lincoln wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982), offering a self-proclaimed
scholarly account of this fanciful story of Mary Magdalene as the mother of Jesus child. In 1969, the
Roman Catholic Church reversed the interpretation of Gregory the Great, arguing against identifying
Mary Magdalene with the unnamed woman in Luke 7:37.
- 50 -
upset because Jesus took Judas away. Now Judas would be upset, and apparently, contrary to
Shakespeare, hells fury is stronger in a scorned man. Consequently, as Jesus heals Mary
Magdalene and she converts, the camera pans left to catch an angry gleam forming in Judass
eye. That angry gleam eventually matures into his betrayal of his Master. Cecil B. DeMille,
while drawing from tradition, added his own unique cinematic stamp to Mary Magdalene.
And the American psyche was forever changed, thinking that, indeed, there is something
about Mary.18
DeMilles cinematic license with Mary Magdalene, however, was only the beginning.
Even the inimitable Johnny Cash would make his own contribution to the story. After his
conversion in 1968, Cash set about a project that was for him a labor of love, entailing both
an album and a full-length feature film retelling the story of Jesus. On October 23, 1972,
most of Nashville gathered for the premier showing of The Gospel Road. Cash mostly self-
financed the picture. He also shot it in Israel, hoping to bring as much authenticity to the
story as he could. The disciples would be played by, fortunately for Cash, a group of
European backpackers who just happened to be milling around the deserted town where the
film was shotthis was the 1970s. The director, Robert Elfstrom, sporting long, blond hair
and looking like a hippie, played Jesus. The part of Mary Magdalene went to June Carter
Cash. Cash introduces the conversion of Mary with the narration, I wonder what Mary
Magdalene really looked like. The Scriptures dont tell a lot about her. But what little is told
has made her the subject of more speculation and controversy than any woman I ever heard
of. Cash also adds, Jesus was to suffer much for his association with people of, at this
point he stops looking down and drills his eyes directly into the camera, questionable
character. But Jesus, Cash reminds us, didnt come for the well but for the sick. In other
words, Mary Magdalene needed him. Cash next moves to add to the speculation and
controversy in his encounter of Mary Magdalene and Jesus. As his biographer Michael
Streissguth puts it, June as Mary Magdalene and the scene itself was altogether sensuous.19
In the wordless interaction, until Junes solo dubs over the scene, Jesus caresses Junes
face and removes her head scarf as it gently falls to the ground. Viewers actually view the
scene no fewer than four times and from as many camera angles. At the end of the scene,
June, looking mesmerized, speaks to the camera, Seven times he touched me, apparently
one time for each of the seven demons mentioned in Luke 8:2, and each time he touched
me I felt something go out of me and Im clean. I am clean. Then Johnny Cash offers the
final word, Mary was the kind of woman that Jesus was to have a lot of love and
compassion for, before adding with frankly an uncomfortable emphasis, A lot of love and
compassion for Mary Magdalene. No doubt both Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash were
sincere in their movie and especially in this scene. Though true of Johnny more than June,
prior to 1972 both of them had rather public contentions with their own demons. When
June, in character, said, having met Jesus, I am so happy, she more than likely meant it
from her heart. Their sincerity aside, the scene stresses a nearly romantic attachment
18 Cecil B. DeMille, Autobiography of Cecil B. DeMille, p. 275.

19 Michael Streissguth, Johnny Cash: The Biography (Cambridge, Mass.: De Capo Press, 2006), p.
181.
- 51 -
between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, punctuated by the numerous references to the words
touch, feel and love.
It would take Martin Scorsese, however, to bring the romance of Jesus and Mary
Magdalene to its zenith. Scorseses Jesus gives in to the temptation, a lapse that Scorsese
celebrates. When we first meet up with Jesus in this film, we find him to be a rather tortured
and conflicted individual, psychologically that is. Hes plagued by pain, inner voices and sin.
Im struggling, are the very first words that Jesus utters. Mary Magdalene becomes in many
ways his special project; he will, in a stereotypical fashion, rescue the prostitute even though
she doesnt want to be rescued. He doesnt make an ideal Savior, however. One evening he
sits among the many men who came calling. When he finally does go in to see her after the
last one leaves in the early dawn hours, his question of her is would she forgive him of his
sins. Eventually and reluctantly Jesus goes to the cross. In what feels like a dream, a young,
blond angel, complete with a British accent, comes to Christ, tells him that God doesnt
want him to die and takes him down off the cross. In the next scene Jesus and Mary
Magdalene consummate their marriage. Jesus raises a family and lives out his life.
Jean-Claude La Marre also picks up on the Mary Magdalene prostitute in The Color of
the Cross. Following DeMille, La Marre has Judas as one of her clients. In fact, in his movie
Judas uses the thirty pieces of silver to successfully tempt Mary Magdalene back to the life
Jesus rescued her from on the night of the betrayal. Scorseses radical introduction of a
sexual dalliance with Mary Magdalene has now, in a post-Da Vinci Code culture, become
commonplace. Helped along by biblical and patristics scholars infatuated with Gnostic texts,
the thesis that Mary Magdalene and Christ had sexual relations, produced an offspring, and
triggered the greatest cover-up of all time has gained much traction. This is the conspiracy
theory of all conspiracy theories. Quite recently a novel writer, whose qualifications include
her quite confident self-claim to be in that long line of offspring from Jesus and Mary
Magdalene, offers a treatment of the alleged romance between her first-century ancestors.
Kathleen McGowan calls her novel partly autobiographical. While (hopefully) not
believing her, her publisher, Simon and Schuster, invested quite a bit in both a marketing
campaign and a large first print run. What is it about Mary that has brought all this on?20
The better question might be what is it about contemporary culture that has brought all
this on? Perhaps the answer is as simple as the notion that in order for it to be a truly good
story it has to have romance. Every leading man needs a leading lady. The audiences of the
silver screen thrive on this, as do the readers of novels. If you cant find the romantic plot
line in the Gospels themselves, a little literary and cinematic license can help. Its quite likely
that most evangelicals remain nonplussed by all of this ado about Mary Magdalene, which is
to say that these movies have had little or no impact on American evangelical thinking about
Christ. There still is, however, something about Mary that we should pay attention to, even if
only as a cautionary tale. From Cecil B. DeMille to La Marre what happens to Mary
Magdalene reflects the need to go beyond the text, to see more of the human dimension of
20 Kathleen McGowan, The Expected One: A Novel (New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster,
2006); Andrew Buncombe, Kathleen McGowan: The Da Vinci Descendant, The Independent, July
23, 2006.
- 52 -
Christ than comes off from the flat, two-dimensional text of the Gospels. In earlier chapters,
especially in chapter three on the Victorians, we saw how the Word was perceived to have
failed, not answering our unanswered questions about Christ, not filling in those scenes our
imaginations call for. The perceived failure of the Word becomes by definition all the more
acute when it comes to putting Christ on the silver screen.
Jesus Laughing
This extracanonical Mary Magdalene of American Jesus films represents a larger
tendency to freely fill in the Gospels, to go where the text does not take us. After all, Jesus
surely had times when he laughed with his family and with disciples. Surely he shared many
tender moments with them. Its not too much of a leap to conclude that having a fuller
picture of Jesus, having these gaps filled in, would most certainly be a good thing.
Evangelicals applauded Mel Gibsons verity to the biblical narrative in The Passion, ironic
because in many ways Gibson drifted from the biblical narrative, sometimes far and wide.
First, the opening scene in the garden of Gethsemane, the moment of Christs struggle in
prayer over this final step in his messianic mission, Gibson has Satan appear to him off-
camera, furthering his struggle and toil. Gibson then has Satan send a snake Christs way,
which Jesus forcefullyrather manly?crushes. The scene becomes a stroke of cinematic
and theological brilliance. It harkens the viewer back to Genesis 3:15 and the promise that
while the serpent strikes the heel of the seed of the woman, the seed of the woman, whom
later biblical texts identify as Christ, will crush the serpents head. Its not, however, in the
Gospel texts. Im not being overly nitpicky: Gibson takes cinematic license quite often,
maybe more often than the films rather vocal proponents wish to admit. Gibsons focus on
Mary, the mother of Jesus, also requires him to fill in the gaps. In a flashback scene, Mary
recalls a playful Jesus splashing water in her face before sitting down to eat dinner. Again it
becomes a tender moment that helps his story line, but one absent from the Gospels. So too
with Gibson having Pilates wife offer Mary a fine linen cloth as Jesus precrucifixion torture
finally moves to an end. This scene comes from Emmerichs Dolorous Passion of Our Lord,
not from the Gospels. Darren J. N. Middleton summarizes the films sources, Gibson
blends late-medieval catholic visual art, the fourteen stations of the cross, Isaiah 53, and the
visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich.21
Perhaps most troubling, however, is the movies relentless focus on the gruesome
violence. The Gospels themselves do not linger over the precrucifixion torture anywhere
near the extent that Gibson does. Lorenzo Albacete contrasts Gibsons account with that of
the Gospels, observing, It is surprising to see how concise and devoid of detail the passion
accounts in the Gospels are. One could read all four of them during the time it takes to
watch the flagellation scene in Gibsons film. Albacete then explores the dangers of
Gibsons obsession, noting that it has the effect of reducing the Gospel story to a gut-
wrenching, emotional drain. Gibsons telling also fails to connect the story of the passion to
the rest of the story of the incarnation, except by some relatively slim attempts through
flashbacks. But even there Gibson exercises license. And, while we are on the subject of
21 Darren J. N. Middleton, Celluloid Synoptics: Viewing the Gospels of Marty and Mel Together,
in Re-Viewing the Passion, ed. S. Brent Plate (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 71.
- 53 -
Jesus mother, Albacete, himself a Roman Catholic, notes, Gibsons depiction of Mary, the
mother of Jesus, is entirely a result of his Catholicism.22 This criticism of Gibson is not to
minimize the truly physically grueling and torturous nature of the passion event, nor does it
dismiss the experiential in the lives of Christians today. But Gibsons movie wrests the
passion account from its theological and historical contextdespite all of the Aramaic and
Latinmaking it an existential moment. Albacete insightfully refers to this as a
disincarnation. There are far more extreme examples than Gibson when it comes to
adding to the Gospels to put Jesus on the screen. The Passion is the kind of film that most
Christians, both evangelicals and Catholics alike on this one, hail as biblically accurate and
faithful and true. As Pope John Paul II said after viewing the film, It is as it was. If such a
film, despite papal pronouncements, adds to the script, then how much more do other films
add to the script?
Jesus In Montreal
Another phenomenon of Jesus movies worth considering concerns the desire to recast
him into our own cultural context. Denys Arcands 1989 Jesus of Montreal presents a salient
example. In this rather existential film, an aging priest enlists the services of a young actor to
rewrite a thirty-year-old script for the passion play staged by Montreals diocese. Daniel,
played by Lothaire Bluteau, begins researching the scholarship of the quest of the historical
Jesus. In the process he learns that Jesus death was an accident of history, as Jesus assumed
a messiah complex that got out of hand, ending in Jesus death as an insurrectionist at the
hands of the Romans. Now enlightened, Daniel wishes to recast the play along these lines,
putting a much fresher face on it than the bishop bargained for. Daniel, much like Jesus
gathering the disciples, calls other actors to join him, some accepting, some choosing other
work. The play, set outdoors, mystifies some and attracts others. Church officials, however,
decide to bring down the curtain, so to speak, on the operation, thus playing quite well the
role of the Pharisees.
The movie actually has much to commend it, having won the jury prize at Cannes in
1989. It is probably by far the most engaging of Jesus films. Arcands genius in the film,
according to Brian Stone, is the dynamic confrontation of Daniel as Christ-figure and the
Jesus-portraits among which he moves, the portraits including the Jesus of form criticism
that Daniel researches, the lofty Jesus of the church officials, the entertainer Jesus that the
crowds went out to see, as well as the many iconic images of Jesus that pepper the film.
Theologian Richard Walsh also applauds Arcand for depicting not a nostalgic Jesus but one
who is unnerving and disturbing, like the prophets of old. Critics too praise the movie, but
for far different reasons. One declared the film valuable precisely because of [its] lack of
dogma. In the words of one, Arcand penetrates Christianity with agnostic wit, giving
moviegoers a secular savior and suggesting that where religion has failed, art may yet
22 Lorenzo Albacete, The Gibson Code, in After the Passion Is Gone, ed. J. Shawn Landres and
Michael Berenbaum (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), p. 109.
- 54 -
offer salvation. The problem with removing Jesus from the boundaries of the Gospels, as
the film intentionally does, is that one indeed is left with a secular savior.23
Most movies, however, tend to be more subtle in bringing Jesus forward. Again, Johnny
Cashs Gospel Road is an example. Like just about every Jesus film, Cash includes the
infamous expunging of moneychangers from the temple. In Jesus in Montreal, Daniel chases
greedy directors out of a theater with electrical cords in his hand instead of a leather whip.
Cash has Jesus walking through what is supposed to be the temple courtyard, overturning
tables, chasing off livestock, smashing produce and hurling money boxes. He then has Christ
rebuking the leaders and the merchants for their greed, hypocrisy and their sin of defiling
Gods, his fathers, holy house. Cash then offers narration, commenting on Jesus public
expos of the religious establishment. Cashs word choice is instructive, as these
expressions reflect more of 1970s counterculture than they do the biblical idiom. So
ensconced are we in our own age that we hear Cashs word rather seamlessly alongside of
the biblical words, not even taking notice of the difference. When we remember that the
character playing Jesus looks exactly like a California hippie we see how much this scene
reflects the 1970s.
The fast-forwarding of Jesus into contemporary settings may also be seen in the 1970s
movie musicals Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell. Both of these started life as Broadway
musicals in 1971, the exact same year the Jesus People were garnering the covers of national
news magazines. From the moment the brightly painted bus pulls up to the Roman pillars in
the middle of the desert and unloads its enthusiastic troupe of actors, musicians and dancers,
anyone sitting in the audience of Jesus Christ Superstar knows they are in for a 1970s rock
opera and not a historical depiction of historical texts. The brightly colored spandex-clad
dancers drive the point home in song after song. Some of the more telling anachronisms of
this movie include Judas being chased across the desert by three tanks and King Herod
asking Jesus to walk across his swimming pool. Lloyd Baugh speaks of the films almost
total lack of correspondence between the film and the gospel. Baugh continues by noting
that the films lack of coherency and consistency as it moves from at least a biblical frame of
reference to utterly foreign reinterpretations and retellings, creating what he wants to call
the first postmodern gospel.24
Godspell is even more blatant in contemporizing the message, having John the Baptist
call followers to join him splashing around in a fountain in New York Citys Central Park
the equivalent to the baptisms by him in the Jordan River. The followers look more like
mesmerized zombies, hearing the call to discipleship as if it were some dog whistle on some
special frequency. The Pharisees and Sadducees that rebuff Jesus in the Gospels become the
police, and Jesus, whose face is painted as a clown with a teardrop, hangs out with the
23 Bryan P. Stone, Faith and Film: Theological Themes at the Cinema (St. Louis: Chalice Press,
2000), p. 56; Richard Walsh, Reading the Gospels in the Dark (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press
International, 2003), pp. 45-68; the movie critics citations are found in Tatum, Jesus at the Movies, pp.
187-88.
24 Lloyd Baugh, Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward,
1997), p. 36.
- 55 -
disenfranchised in a junkyard, when theyre not twirling around the streets to Barry
Manilow-esque songs. At the end, Christ dies on a pedestal, fashioned after the kind circus
animals stand on, against a chainlink fence. His disciples arise in the morning to take down
the dead body and carry it through the streets, singing Day by Day, which initially sounds
somber and chantlike before becoming more upbeat and hopeful. Both of these movies have
been labeled important cultural artifact[s], which has a side effect of allowing academics to
justify showing them in courses. To call them cultural artifacts also means that they both
represent and contribute to culture and to cultural attitudes about Christ. In both the cases
of Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell, Jesus looks like he would be right at home in 1970s
counterculture. Of course, thats not the Jesus of the Gospels. Both films suffer irreversibly
from downplaying Jesus divinity. As Richard Wightman Fox quipped, Jesus Christ
Superstar displayed plenty of divinity. It was simply located in the Father, not in Jesus.25
Most evangelicals would give little, if any, time to either of these 1970s movies or their
soundtracks, or their continual on-and-off Broadway reincarnations. But evangelicals have,
from time to time, sanctioned the rechristening of the Gospel story in contemporary
fashion. Most such contemporizing of the Gospels and of Jesus occurs off the screen and
off the stage. The wildly popular Cotton Patch Gospel transports the Gospels from the
distant geographical region of the Mediterranean to the American South. There are also
more subtle ways, such as the ways most contemporary Christian writers speak of Jesus in
colloquial terms and current idioms, or the way they recast and retell the Gospels in
contemporary settings and circumstances. The desire to do so reflects the healthy impulse of
bringing Christ and the Bible to bear on the context of our lives. But it can also cause us to
distort Jesus and the Gospels or to miss out on how Jesus and the Gospels could correct
what we assume to be true, what we take for granted culturally. Putting Jesus on the silver
screen invites the overtaking of current cultural forms in the telling of Jesus story. In the
process, Jesus himself gets swept away, as the case with the disciples in Godspell carrying
him off through the streets of New York (or Quebec).
How Do You Shoot The Hypostatic Union?
It might be unfair to expect of film that which it cannot deliver. It appears to be too
difficult to offer an entire biblically informed movie on Jesus. It appears to be even more
difficult to portray Christ as the God-man on the screen. These limitations may not be so
much the fault of the screenwriters, producers and directors, as much as they reflect the
limitations of the genre. One exception to this contention, if not an exception to these Jesus
films, is Jesus (1979) by John Krish and Peter Sykes, with the backing of Bill Bright and
Campus Crusade. In the 1990s, the Jesus Film Project became a veritable institution, offering
whole kits for screenings and postscreening classes. The film has been translated into
hundreds of languages, with more translations added annually and more in the works. If you
want to read the script, as the website for the project informs you, simply open your Bible to
Luke. The film was shot on location to further its authenticity. As Bill Bright and five
hundred others began to put the project together, they followed five principles. The first two
25 Stern, Jefford and Debona, Savior on the Silver Screen, p. 193; Richard Wightman Fox, Jesus in
America: A History (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), p. 380.
- 56 -
are The film, must be as archaeologically, historically, and theologically accurate as humanly
possible. The presentation must be unbiased, acceptable to all as the depiction of Christs
life.26
The Jesus Film, as it has come to be called, is the exception, however, that proves the
rule. But even here, too, as its creators realize, the film still needs to be interpreted.
Depicting Christs birth, life and death, and even his resurrection is one thing; understanding
the full weight of all of those events is another. The Passion of the Christ, too, has been
hailed for its evangelistic value. Given the intensity of the film, how anyone can escape
without even a modicum of reaction defies imagination. Yet many moviegoers did. Having
seen Braveheart, they expect violence from Gibson. Having seen many, many violent
movies, American audiences may have been impressed by the sheer duration of the violence
Gibson put before them, but many likely could watch without wincing. Even if they did
wince at the violence, something significant remains missing. The Passion can portray the
violence of the crucifixion, but it cant portray the break in the eternal fellowship of the
Trinity, the break in the divine union between the Father and the Son as the Son bore the
wrath of God for the sin of humanity. Its not Gibsons fault. No director can pull it off.
Putting Jesus on the silver screen focuses almost necessarily on his humanity. Even the
crowds who lived during the first century and encountered Jesus grasped his humanity much
more readily than his deity. And when he confronted them with his true identity, they
responded with incredulity and suspicion. Following the Puritan era in American theology,
the humanity of Christ has been on the rise. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century
the religious establishment belonging to denominations and movementswhich in previous
eras held strongly to the Nicene and Chalcedonian formulas of the two natures of Christ,
that Christ is the God-Manbegan to drift from and then eventually jettison such
statements in favor of seeing Christ as a divinized or enlightened human. At times, American
Christianity tilts the other way, allowing his deity to eclipse his humanity, as in the Christmas
carol that goes, The little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes. But by and large in our culture
its the humanity of Jesus that wins out. In the broader circles of popular culture, Jesus too
shed his trappings of divinity and became mortal, one quite close to God but entirely and
only just like the rest of us. This trajectory follows the cinematic portrayal of Christ almost
to a T. As the century churned out films, Jesus became one of us.
Its A Bird, Its A Plane, Its A . . . Christ Figure?
Theologians who work with film and culture have distinguished between Jesus figures
and Christ figures. The Jesus figure is Jesus himself, played across a spectrum from the
painstakingly authentic and realistic to the entirely stylized. Think Jesus of the Jesus Film
Project versus the Jesus of Godspell. Christ figures, on the other hand, are messianic figures,
playing the role of redeemer or savior. For this category, think of Rocky Balboa or even
Sylvester Stallones other character, Rambo. The hero in The Matrix, Neo, an anagram for
the One, also serves as a Christ figure. Replete with cinematic nods to Jesus films, The
26 History of the Project, The Jesus Film Project <www.jesusfilm.org/aboutus/history.html>.
- 57 -
Matrix adds to the mix the world of technology and even a dash of Eastern religious
traditions in its setting forth of a Christ figure.
Then theres the ultimate and time-tested hero, Superman. Recently, the new Superman,
Superman Returns (2006), also fits the part. As Jacob Adelman notes, As one of societys
most enduring pop-culture icons, Superman has often been observed as more than just a
man in tights. The new Superman movie, however, takes the messianic overtones to new
heights. Superman is sent by his father to Earth. Their names are Kal-El and Jor-El, El
opaquely representing the Hebrew word El, which means God. Search the blogs and you
will find many, many more examples. Stephenson Humphries-Brooks argues that films
depicting the epic hero, beginning in the 1950s and especially including the Westerns, have
merged the story lines of the Messiah with the American hero, creating what he terms an
American Christ. Lloyd Baugh concurs, noting, The western, a most American genre of
cinema, provides a remarkably apt and increasing context for the development of the
cinematic Christ-figure. The more you watch, the more you will likely find Christ figures in
American film.27
A third category could be added to Jesus figures and Christ figures: films that explore
rich theological themes, such as alienation and reconciliation, loss and redemption
redemptive films. Sometimes these films have a Christ figure, other times the role of the
Christ figure is played off camera. But in all, the characters are confronted with their
limitations, their losses, their alienation from their fellow human beings, or even from their
own selves. Some characters remain in that state, though such films tend to be more popular
with critics than with audiences. We have been conditioned to like a happy endingimagine
the expression on your kids face if Wilbur the pig in Charlottes Web bought it in the end
instead of returning to the farm. Other characters, however, make it through the conflict,
out of the night and into the dawn of day. They find redemption and reconciliation. David
Dark, William Romanowski and others have made a compelling case for a theological
reading of films. Dark especially focuses on films by Joel and Ethan Coen, including O
Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), Barton Fink (1991), Fargo (1996) and The Man Who
Wasnt There (2001), among others. As with finding Christ figures, the more we watch, the
more we see these redemptive themes. What is a good story without confronting the human
condition and holding out hope and salvation?28 In chapter five I referred to Andrew
Greeleys labeling of popular culture as the locus theologicus. While thats certainly true of
music, its also true of film, perhaps more so. This means that we dont need a full-fledged
Jesus film to launch an evangelistic campaign. In fact, given some of the problems with
27 Peter Malone, Movie Christs and Antichrists (New York: Crossroad, 1990), pp. 17-19; Jacob
Adelman, Superman as Messiah? Associated Press, June 16, 2006; Stephenson Humphries-Brooks,
Cinematic Savior: Hollywoods Making of the American Christ (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2006), pp.
115, 127-32; and Baugh, Imaging the Divine, p. 157.
28 David Dark, Everyday Apocalypse: The Sacred Revealed in Radiohead, the Simpsons and other
Pop Culture Icons (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2002). See also William D. Romanowski, Eyes Wide Open:
Looking for God in Popular Culture, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007).
- 58 -
putting Jesus on the big screen, Christ-figure films and redemptive films might actually be
the better way for telling the story of the good news.
Conclusion
Just in time for the Christmas movie season in December 2006, New Line Cinema
released The Nativity Story. Unlike The Passion, this movie opened to none of the
controversy and a fraction of the box office, just under one-tenth of the take in the first
week, to be exact. The reviewers, not at all missing its lackluster performance next to that of
Gibsons movie, spoke of it as low on passion, dull and unimaginative. The reviewers
continue, noting that the movie lacks special effects, which produces a yawn from the
audience, nothing akin to Gibsons work and the reactions of Gibsons viewers.
One of the few favorable reviews came, not surprisingly, from the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops. Hollywood, the Bishops Office for Film and Broadcasting declares,
finally gets it right. Getting it right, however, simply doesnt sell. The review, however, is
forced to admit that screenwriter Mike Rich, described as both thoughtful and a
practicing Christian, fleshes out the sparse details of the New Testament accounts. Even
so the collective yawn of the movie shows the difficulty in putting Christ on the silver
screen. Movies that are less risk-averse tend to fare much better. In fact, the Jesus films, as
mentioned in this chapter, have done so well that Stephenson Humphries-Brooks speaks of
the Cinematic Savior, while others speak of the Celluloid Savior.29
Jesus films bring together two things Americans love, Jesus and movies. The significant
question seems to be, Do they mix well? Whether they mix well or not, they become the way
many understand Jesus. William R. Telford points out, Given its popularity, the Christ film
is arguably the most significant medium through which popular culture this century has
absorbed its knowledge of the gospel story and formed its impression of Christianitys
founder. For audiences in the 1920s through the 1950s it was DeMilles Jesus they were
coming to know, while todays audiences have Gibsons Jesus. This silver screen Jesus tends
toward a human Jesus, though in Gibsons case a human Jesus who withstands an
extraordinary amount of punishment.30
American Jesus films also invite us to use our imagination, even a sanctified imagination,
to add to the biblical text. This furthers the trajectory that began in the nineteenth century in
which the biblical accounts failed to address contemporary readers and viewers needs,
which in turn legitimized the action of adding to the text (see chap. 3). The additions tend to
have a strongly emotional appeal, embedding ones encounter with Christ in experience, an
experience limited by ones cultural horizons. The Jesus of Scripture comes from outside,
29 Scott Foundas, review of The Nativity Story, SFWeekly.com, May 29, 2006; United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office for Film and Broadcasting, review of The Nativity Story, n.d.;
Jeffrey H. Mahan, Celluloid Savior: Jesus in the Movies, Journal of Religion and Film 6, no. 1 (April
2002).
30 William R. Telford, Jesus Christ Movie Star: The Depiction of Jesus in the Cinema, in
Explorations in Theology and Film, ed. Clive Marsh and Gay Ortiz (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), p. 122.
- 59 -
not from within, our cultural horizons, standing above, over and even, at times, against those
horizons as the Lord and Savior.
The Jesus of American film, however, looks more like a homegrown action hero. At least
thats the conclusion of Stephenson Humphries-Brooks. He sees Americas fixation to
identify with, cast itself as, and become a hero in its own view as underlying the
development of Jesus as the action hero in this wave of Jesus films. Even Gibsons The
Passion speaks to Americas preferred view of itself as a suffering hero. This leads
Humphries-Brooks to pose the question, Where is the real Jesus? For Hollywood he is no
longer to be found in the gospel tradition. He continues with an explanation of why the
Jesus of the Gospels no longer suffices, We seem to desire a new kind of more heroic and
more reassuring Savior, adding, Hollywood certainly seems willing to create and to market
him to us. In the turning from the Christ of Scripture to the cinematic savior, we have lost
those limits and questions posed by the individual Gospel portraits of Jesus that have from
time to time ameliorated the tendency of all readers, the faithful and the not-so faithful, to
see in him what they want to see. We have made Jesus a celluloid version of our own image.
Maybe, at the end of the day, that is the true controversy of Jesus films.31
31 These endorsements, as well as others by evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders alike may be
found at The Passion of the Christ: Assessment by Conservative Christians, www.religioustolerance

.org/chrgibson3.htm.
- 60 -
LUTHERAN PURITANISM?
ADIAPHORA IN LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY AND POSSIBLE
COMMONALITIES IN REFORMED ORTHODOXY
Daniel R. Hyde1
Adiaphora. From the vantage point of the Reformed Christian, the word evokes smells
and bells in holy worship all in the name of Christian freedom. Yet the reasons for the
Lutheran doctrine and practice of indifferent matters in the liturgy are shrouded in mystery
for those on the Calvinistic side of the Reformation in the twenty-first century. The reality
was that there were times in Lutheran polemics with Rome that adiaphora were argued
against in what we may anachronistically call a Puritan-esque fashion.2 No less a scholar of
Lutheranism than Robert Kolb makes the analogy between the Anglicans and Puritans of
sixteenth and seventeenth century England and the Philippists and Gnesio-Lutherans of
sixteenth century Germany. Ignorance of the historical situation has led many Calvinists to
popularly caricature the Lutheran principle of liturgy as the normative principle, in which
whatever is not forbidden is permitted, while the Calvinist regulative principle is that in
which whatever is commanded is required.3
Since issues of substance are always more nuanced and complicated than their simplistic
reductions, the purpose of this article is to investigate adiaphora in sixteenth century
confessional Lutheranism and to chronicle some of the historical debate over its use and
non-use in order to understand this Puritan-sounding language and place it in its context.
The end result will be a greater appreciation for Lutheran liturgics and polemics as well as
1 Rev. Daniel R. Hyde, M.Div., is the pastor of the Oceanside United Reformed Church (URCNA)
in Oceanside/Carlsbad, California and is a Th.M. candidate at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.

He is the author of Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children (Reformed Fellowship,
2006); The Good Confession: An Exploration of the Christian Faith (Wipf & Stock, 2007); What to
Expect in Reformed Worship: A Visitors Guide (Wipf & Stock, 2007); God With Us: Knowing the
Mystery of Who Jesus Is (Reformation Heritage, 2007); With Heart and Mouth: An Exposition of the
Belgic Confession (Reformed Fellowship, 2008); and In Living Color: Pastoral Counsel on Images of
Christ (Reformed Fellowship, 2008).
2 Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1977), 24.

3 E.g., Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997),
16; Terry L. Johnson, Reformed Worship: Worship That Is Reformed According to Scripture
(Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 2000), 23; D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, With
Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (Philipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing,
2002), 78; William Young, The Second Commandment: The Principle that God is to be Worshipped
Only in Ways Prescribed in Holy Scripture and that the Holy Scripture the Whole Content of Worship,
Taught by Scripture Itself, in Worship in the Presence of God: A Collection of Essays on the Nature,
Elements, and Historic Views and Practices of Worship, ed. Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman
(Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media and Press, 2006), 7576; R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed
Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2008), 22729.
- 61 -
finding possible points of commonality between confessional Lutheran orthodoxy and

confessional Reformed orthodoxy.
The Augsburg Confession
In proceeding chronologically, the place to begin is with the Augsburg Confession (1530)
which confesses what the early Evangelicals believed on the issue of Church Regulations
(Kirchenordnungen). In its fifteenth article we read:
Concerning church regulations made by human beings, it is taught to keep
those that may be kept without sin and that serve to maintain peace and
good order in the church, such as specific celebrations, festivals, etc.
However, people are also instructed not to burden consciences with them
as if such things were necessary for salvation. Moreover, it is taught that
all rules and traditions made by human beings for the purpose of
appeasing God and of earning grace are contrary to the gospel and the
teaching concerning faith in Christ. That is why monastic vows and other
traditions concerning distinctions of foods, days, and the like, through
which people imagine they can earn grace and make satisfaction for sin,
are good for nothing and contrary to the gospel.4
The Augsburg distinguishes between those ceremonies that Rome understood to be
necessary to salvation and those ceremonies that may be done without sin and that
promote peace and good order. The former are rejected and the latter two may be
retained. Vernon Kleinig has illustrated some of the church regulations that serve to
maintain the peace and good order of the church in the thought and practice of Martin
Luther. Having any given liturgy itself is adiaphora: It has never been our intention to
abolish the liturgical service of God completely, but rather to purify the one that is now in
use.5 Of course, liturgy is inevitable. Yet Luther intended his Formula Missae (1523) only
for local use while later supplementing it with the Deutsche Messe (1525) for the German
people. In these adiaphora were included the use of the medieval lectionary (although
Luther complained of its moralistic bias), the introits, collects, and prayers.6 He also kept the
elevation in communion (although it was omitted in Wittenberg in 1542), which he
understood to be raised towards the people to whom it is given, not towards God.7 Luthers
liturgical principle is seen with regard to the elevation in his 1524 treatise, Against the
Heavenly Prophets: We, however, take the middle course and say: There is to be neither
4 The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and
Timothy J. Wengert, trans. Charles Arand, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, William Russell, James Schaaf,
Jane Strohl, Timothy J,. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 48.
5 Cited in Vernon P. Kleinig, Lutheran Liturgies from Martin Luther to Wilhelm Lhe.
Concordia Theological Quarterly 62:2 (April 1998): 128. Cf. Bodo Nischan, Ritual and Protestant
Identity in Late Reformation Germany, in Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century
Europe: Volume 2, The Later Reformation, ed. Bruce Gordon (Hants, England: Scholar Press, 1996),
144.
6 Kleinig, Lutheran Liturgies, 128.
7 Ibid., 130.
- 62 -
commanding or forbidding, neither to the right nor to the left. We are neither papistic nor
Karlstadtian, but free and Christian regarding elevation . . . In the parish church we still have
the chasuble, alb, altar, and elevate [the host] as long as it pleases us.8
At the heart of Luthers liturgical thought, then, was the Christian freedom Christ has
granted his Church in justification.9 As John T. Pless says, The doctrine of justification is
therefore the dynamic principle in Luthers liturgical revisions.10 This meant that the
particular liturgy of the Mass was accepted as the traditional form of worship but that it had
to be regulated and modified according to the doctrine of justification, sola fide. Therefore,
the Reformed summary of the Lutheran principle of worship was not Luthers principle at
all. Instead of what is not forbidden is permitted, Luthers principle was whatever was
according to the doctrine of justification sola fide was necessary and whatever is not is
forbidden.
An important source for the Augsburg Confession were the Torgau Articles (1530). In
fact, article fifteen of the Augsburg Confession is a summarized version of the much longer
first article in the Torgau Articles. In these articles the Elector of Saxonys theologians not
only stated what would later be the fifteenth article of Augsburg, but also gave many
Scripture proofs and citations from the church fathers to refute Romes claims. Ecclesiastical
ordinances had been retained in Saxony as long as they were not contrary to the Gospel
(Augsburg: without sin) meaning they did not hinder but served the proclamation of
justification by faith alone. Ordinances were also retained for the sake of peace (Augsburg:
maintain peace and good order).11 Yet the opponents of the Saxons taught that church
customs were necessary: Some people, however, let themselves be told that no change is
permitted without approval of the church or the Pope and that the sins which arise from the
doctrines of human invention are much more tolerable and less hurtful than the schism
which has now begun through such changes.12
The Torgau Articles answered in three ways. First, citing Acts 5:29, it was noted that,
We must obey God rather than human authority. Second, citing the Creed, it was noted
that the church was confessed to be catholic. This meant that,
. . . the church is in the whole world and is not bound to a single place.
Rather, everywhere, wherever Gods Word and ordinances are, there the
8 Cited in ibid., 132.

9 On the centrality of Christ, justification, and faith as the essence of Lutheran worship see Norvald
Yri, Worship in Lutheranism, in Worship: Adoration and Action, ed. D. A. Carson (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 2002), 12834.
10 John T. Pless, The Relationship of Adiaphora and Liturgy in the Lutheran Confessions, in
And Every Tongue Confess: Essays in Honor of Norman Nagel on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth
Birthday, ed. Gerald S. Krispin and Jon D. Vieker (Dearborn, MI: The Nagel Festschrift Committee,
1990), 197.
11 Sources and Contexts of The Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 9495.

12 Ibid., 95.
- 63 -
church is. Since external human ordinances are not the same everywhere,
it follows that such variance is not contrary to the unity of the church.13
Third, citing Augustine, the Torgau articles supported its claim that the unity of the church
does not exist in external human ordinances.14
The heart of article one of the Torgau Articles, as well as the Augsburgs corresponding
article fifteen, was on the issue that certain church ordinances were necessary for obtaining
grace and forgiveness. Things such as fasting, certain foods and clothing, festivals, songs,
and pilgrimages were not to be seen as necessary to receiving grace and forgiveness. On the
contrary, grace and forgiveness were granted by grace and received by faith, citing Galatians
2:21, Romans 3:28, and Ephesians 2:89. The Articles went on to say, Furthermore, Christ
has forbidden that sin and righteousness be defined with reference to the distinction
between foods. He intends that such things be left free. Here the Articles cite Colossians
2:16 and 1 Timothy 4:13.15 The Elector, therefore, allowed such traditions to be set aside
because it is obvious that people regarded them as works performed to receive the
forgiveness of sins.16
Positively, the Torgau Articles spoke about church ordinances that were utilized to teach
Christian doctrine to the people in article ten:
Since ceremonies are supposed to support doctrine, we have adapted
some German singing so that through such exercises the people should
learn something. As Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 14[5,19], in the church
we ought not speak or sing anything that is unclear. Nevertheless, we do
not make a law of this and also continue to sing Latin, as practice for the
youth.17
The Schwabach Articles, written in October 1529 to unite the reform-minded lands of
Germany, speak briefly on the issue of ordinances. In article fifteen the issue of obtaining
grace and forgiveness through church customs was addressed:
It follows from all of this that the doctrines prohibiting marriage and
ordinary meat and food for priests and clergy, together with all monastic
life and vows, are simply condemned doctrines of devils because they seek
and intend [to obtain] grace and salvation through them, and they are not
left free, as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 4[:3]. Of course, Christ alone is the
only way to obtain grace and salvation.18
The last of the Schwabach Articles, article seventeen, invokes the distinction between
those ceremonies that oppose the gospel and those that are retained for the sake of peace:
13 Ibid., 95.
14 Ibid., 96.
15 Ibid., 97.
16 Ibid., 97.
17 Ibid., 104.
18 Ibid., 87.
- 64 -
We also abolish the ceremonies of the church which oppose Gods Word.
We allow the others to be free to be used or not, in accord with love, so
that we might not carelessly offend without reason or disturb the general
peace unnecessarily.19
The Marburg Articles also touched on this subject in October 1529. In its thirteenth
point of agreement, it states:
[We believe] that if what we call tradition (a human ordinance in spiritual
or churchly matters) is not contrary to the clear Word of God, then we
may freely keep it or lay it aside, so long as, among the people with whom
we associate, unnecessary offense is avoided and the weak and the
common peace and so forth are served through love.20
In summary, the Augsburg Confession set the trajectory for Lutheran thinking and
practice on adiaphora by stating that whatever was required that denied the doctrine of
justification sola fide was to be rejected while those things that could be retained without
causing the faithful to sin and that kept peace and good order in the churches were
permitted to be utilized.21
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
Soon after the Augsburg Confession was presented to the imperial Diet on June 25,
1530, over a dozen Catholic theologians began drafting a response, known as the
Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. In dealing with Augsburg article fifteen, the
Confutation agreed that those customs that could be observed without sin ought to be
observed, although the Catholic theologians added that they should be done so with
Christian devotion. They went on to say:
However, the appendix of this article is completely rejected. For it is false
that human ordinances instituted to placate God and make satisfaction for
sin are against the Gospel. This will be made clear when we examine the
articles concerning vows, the choice of foods, etc. in more detail.22
In responding to the Confutations defense of the necessity of ceremonies for salvation,
Philip Melanchthon said,
Although we expected our opponents to defend human traditions for
other reasons, we never dreamed that they would actually condemn the
proposition that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins or grace by
observing human traditions. Since they condemned this article, we have
19 Ibid., 87.
20 Ibid., 91.
21 For an illustration of how Luther himself applied the principle of adiaphora in the case of
causing the weak among the faithful to sin, see Timothy J, Wengert, Luther and Melanchthon on
Consecrated Communion Wine (Eisleben 154243). Lutheran Quarterly 15 (Spring 2001): 2442.
22 Sources and Contexts of The Book of Concord, ed. Kolb and Nestingen, 115.
- 65 -
an open-and-shut case. For the opponents openly Judaize and openly

supplant the gospel with the teachings of demons.23
As John T. Pless has argued, the center of the Lutheran Confessions discussion of
adiaphora is the doctrine of justification by faith alone.24 Melanchthon went on to explain
what he meant by his usage of the Pauline phrase, doctrines of demons:
When someone teaches that religious rites are useful for meriting the
forgiveness of sins and grace, Scripture [1 Tim. 4:13] calls such traditions
the teachings of demons. For this obscures the gospel, the benefits of
Christ, and the righteousness of faith. The gospel teaches that we freely
receive the forgiveness of sins and are reconciled to God by faith on
account of Christ Our opponents, to the contrary, appoint another
mediator, namely, these traditions through which they wish to receive the
forgiveness of sins and to conciliate the wrath of God.25
Melanchthon went on to say that, just as Paul condemns the Mosaic ceremonies because
they were considered to be works that merit righteousness before God, so he has
condemned traditions since they obscured the work of Christ and the righteousness of
faith, which are promised not on account of those works but freely on account of Christ .
. . in such a way that we receive it by faith.26 Melanchthon further addressed the objection
that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins, but that those already justified merit grace
through these traditions when he said: Here again Paul replies [Gal. 2:17], Christ would be
a servant of sin if after justification we must henceforth maintain that we are not accounted
righteous for Christs sake but must first merit [grace] by other observances.27
Melanchthon then invokes the ancient fathers who did not institute a single tradition for
the purpose of meriting the forgiveness of sins or righteousness; they instituted them for the
sake of good order in the church and for the sake, of tranquility.28 Ritual and ceremony
themselves are not evil, in fact they are inevitable, yet Melanchthon sounded a Puritan-esque
note against the institution of ceremonies that were required because they were seen as ways
of meriting forgiveness and therefore evil:
Now if someone wants to institute certain works for the purpose of
meriting the forgiveness of sins or righteousness, how will that person
know that these works please God without the testimony of Gods Word?
How will they make others certain about Gods will without Gods
command and Word? Does not God throughout the prophets prohibit
people from instituting peculiar rites of worship without his command?29
23 The Book of Concord, 223.

24 Pless, The Relationship of Adiaphora and Liturgy, in And Every Tongue Confess, 19698.
25 The Book of Concord, 223.
26 Ibid., 224.
27 Ibid., 224.
28 Ibid., 224.
29 Ibid., 224.
- 66 -
Melanchthons point in saying that a person cannot know that their service to God in the
liturgy pleases God apart from the testimony of Gods Word is that if we say something is
required of the faithful there must be Scripture to support that assertion. This Puritan-
sounding language was over against those things that were not necessary and therefore could
either be rejected or retained as a means of promoting peace and order.
Melanchthon continued with the point that if we were allowed to introduce ceremonies
in order to merit grace, the religious rites of all the nations will have to be approvedeven
the acts of worship instituted by Jeroboam [1 Kings 12:26f.] and by others apart from the
Law.30 On the contrary, the religious rites of the Gentiles and Israelites were condemned
because they believed that they merited the forgiveness of sins and righteousness through
them.31 And since we can affirm nothing about the will of God with the Word of God
and these religious acts have no testimony from the Word of God, the conscience cannot
help but doubt whether they please God.32
Melanchthon made no qualms about this issue, stating, If our opponents defend these
human acts of worship as meriting justification, grace, and the forgiveness of sins, they are
simply establishing the kingdom of the Antichrist. This kingdom was a new kind of
worship of God, devised by human authority in opposition to Christ, just as the kingdom of
Mohammed has religious rites and works, through which it seeks to be justified before
God.33
Returning to the holy Fathers, Melanchthon said although they had rites and
traditions, yet they never taught that these things were useful or necessary for
justification. On the contrary, they taught that we are justified by faith on account of
Christ and not on account of these human acts of worship. Their human rites were for the
sake of usefulness for the body, so that people may know at what time they should
assemble, so that they may have an example of how things in the churches might be done in
decently and in order, and finally, so that the common people may receive some instruction.
(For different seasons and various rites are valuable in admonishing the common people.)34
Adiaphora such as the church calendar (different seasons) and elevating the host (various
rites) were freely retained as means to order the lives of the faithful and to instruct them in
Christian truth.
Melanchthon then brought forward testimonies from the Word of God against this
appearance of wisdom and righteousness in human rites which deceive people: against the
belief that these can merit before God forgiveness of sins or justification, he cited Colossians
2:1617, stating, Our opponents do not know what they are talking about. If the gospel
denies that the ceremonies of Moses (which were divinely instituted) justify, how much less
do human traditions justify! Against the power of bishops to institute required ceremonies,
he cited Peter in Acts 15:10 and Paul in Galatians 5:1, stating, Therefore the apostles
30 Ibid., 225.
31 Ibid., 225.
32 Ibid., 225.
33 Ibid., 225.
34 Ibid., 226.
- 67 -
wanted to maintain this liberty in the church so that no religious activity of the law or of
tradition is judged as necessary.35 Melanchthon concluded this section with an illustration:
But just as Alexander once for all untied the Gordian knot by cutting it with his sword
(since he could not disentangle it), so also the apostles have once and for all freed
consciences from traditions, especially from those that were handed down for the purposes
of meriting justification.36
Against the Confutations charge that we abolish good ordinances and church
discipline, Melanchthon declared that the Lutherans gladly keep the ancient traditions set
up in the church because they are useful and promote tranquility. In fact, Melanchthon said,
We can claim that the public liturgy in the church is more dignified among us than among
the opponents.37 The catholicity of the Lutherans was shown in various ways with the
ancient church in celebrating the Lords Supper every Lords day after [the people] are
instructed, examined, and absolved, in singing, both by children and people to learn the
Psalms as well as to learn to pray, in ministers catechizing the children, and in preaching,
which is called the chief worship of God.38
Melanchthon concluded this article, saying, This topic concerning traditions involves
many difficult and controversial questions, in fact, we know from actual experience that
traditions are real snares for the conscience. When they are required as necessary, they
terribly torture consciences that omit any observance.39 The difficulty was that on the one
hand, Paul says traditions neither justify nor are necessary above and beyond the
righteousness of faith, while on the other hand,
We teach that liberty in these matters should be exercised moderately, so
that the inexperienced may not take offense and, on account of an abuse
of liberty, become more hostile to the true teaching of the gospel.
Nothing in the customary rites may be changed without good reason.
Instead, in order to foster harmony, those ancient customs should be
observed that can be observed without sin or without proving to be a
great burden. In this very assembly we have sufficiently shown that, for
the sake of love, we will reluctantly observe adiaphora with others, even if
such things may prove to be somewhat burdensome. We judge that the
greatest possible public concord which can be maintained without
offending consciences ought to be preferred to all other interests.40
This final paragraph serves as a faithful summary of the issue of adiaphora up to this
point in Lutheran liturgics. While the churches were free to use or disuse human rites,
Melanchthon said the Lutherans reluctantly observe[d] adiaphora . . . even if such things
may prove to be somewhat burdensome. The driving force behind this was accommodating
35 Ibid., 228.
36 Ibid., 228.
37 Ibid., 229.
38 Ibid., 229.
39 Ibid., 230.
40 Ibid., 230.
- 68 -
themselves to the weak in faith. As Melanchthon said, the Lutherans did not want to offend
consciences so that people would not become more hostile to the true teaching of the
gospel.
The Augsburg Interim
For more than a decade the Lutherans worshipped freely in this manner. Then the
imperial army of Charles V defeated the Lutherans in the Schmalkaldic War (154647) at the
Battle of Mhlberg on April 24, 1547. This led to the Augsburg Interim of May 15, 1548.41
This political settlement re-imposed a Catholic doctrine of justification and liturgical practice
in Germany.42 Since most of Ernestine Saxony had been taken from Johann Friedrich and
given to his cousin, Moritz of Albertine Saxony, Moritz sought a further settlement for his
new lands between his Catholic political allies and his co-religionist Lutherans, centered in
Wittenberg. This led to what the Gnesio-Lutherans called the Leipzig Interim of December
1548. Since Moritzs political settlement was led by the Wittenbergers, Philip Melanchthon
and Georg Major, as well as Prince Georg III von Anhalt and Johan Pfeffinger, they became
known as the Philippists by their Gnesio-Lutheran opponents led by the Magdeburg
theologians Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, and Nikolaus Gallus.43
Melanchthon sought to distinguish essential doctrinal matters, such as justification by faith
alone, from indifferent matters (adiaphora) that could be compromised for the sake of peace
in the civil realm in which the church realm existed. This led to the Adiaphora Controversy
in the aftermath of the Interim.
The Adiaphora Controversy
Luther D. Petersons study, Johan Pfeffingers Treatises of 1550 in Defense of
Adiaphora: High Church Lutheranism and Confessionalization in Albertine Saxony, has
demonstrated how the Philippist side defended the Leipzig Interim.44 Pfeffingers first point
was to demonstrate that nothing had changed in Albertine Saxony since the beginning of
reformation therein 1539. As Peterson shows, besides Brandenburg, the Albertine church
may have been the most Roman of Lutheran churches. This is seen in its retention of all
seven sacraments, calling the extra five rites while removing from them all non-Lutheran
elements, as well as its decidedly high church form with the retention of matins, vespers,
the name Mass, vestments, and several traditional festivals.45 Besides being viewed as
betraying the Gospel in the Interim, all that actually changed from the pre-Interim church to
the post-Interim church was the addition of the festival of Corpus Christi, the change of
41 On the Interim, see Robert Kolb, Nikolaus Von Amsdorf (14831565): Popular Polemics in the
Preservation of Luthers Legacy, Bibliotheca Humanistica & Reformatorica Volume XXIV

(Nieuwkoop, The Netherlands: B. De Graaf, 1978), 7282.
42 Cf. Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concord, 2021.
43 On Amsdorfs contribution to the Adiaphora Controversy, see Kolb, Nikolaus Von Amsdorf,
69122.
44 Confessionalization in Europe, 15551700: Essays in Honor of Bodo Nischan, ed. John M.
Headley, Hans J. Hillerbrand, and Anthony J. Papalas (Hants, England: Ashgate, 2004), 91105.
45 Peterson, Johan Pfeffingers Treatises, in Confessionalization in Europe, 9597.
- 69 -
visiting the sick back to unction with the use of oil, and the reestablishment of the
Confiteor by the priest at the beginning of the liturgy.
Despite the Leipzig Interim never being enacted much outside the Merseburg diocese of
Albertine Saxony, its never being officially promulgated, and its Excerpt only being
distributed to a few superintendents and pastors, it became the occasion for the Adiaphora
Controversy courtesy of Flacius. Since most Lutheran lands and church had made a more
outward break with Roman ceremonies in the decades before the Interim, it became a cause
to rally opposition against Rome, the Emperor, and those who apostatized, such as
Moritz, who became known as the Judas of Meissen. The Gnesio slogan was coined in
these times: nihil est adiaphora in casu confessionis et scandali. Not only did adiaphora such
as the surplice (Chorrock), confiteor, elevation of the host, and feast days look like a return
to Rome for the common people, they were viewed as signs of the eschatological struggle
with the Antichrist, and therefore there could be no compromise, only continued
resistance.46 On the contrary, Pfeffinger invoked the Augsburgs distinction. In the words
of Peterson:
. . . he distinguished adiaphora from impieties that were against Gods
Word and even often bound consciences with the claim of being
necessary for worship of God and salvation. Adiaphora were those
traditions of the church which did not oppose Gods Word, and instead
of being necessary for salvation were useful to virtue, uniformity, and
order, and might be maintained out of love for the sake of peace among
the churches or for the sake of remembrance and adornment. Adiaphora
were practices that could be accepted or rejected in freedom.47
In his writing in 1548, Flacius published a list of Luthers quotations in which he rejected
compromise with Rome. In it was a letter from Luther to those at Augsburg in 1530.48 Yet
Flacius deleted something Pfeffinger later used: I for my part am willing and ready to accept
all such external matters for the sake of peace, so far as my conscience is not injured
thereby.49 As Bodo Nischan has demonstrated, the adiaphora controversy was about the
confessional identity of Lutheranism vis--vis Rome. In the words of Flacius:
46 Ibid., 99. Cf. Robert Kolb, Nikolaus von Amsdorf (14831565): Popular Polemics in the
Preservation of Luthers Legacy (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1978), 81, 99100; Kolb, Luthers Heirs Define
His Legacy: Studies on Lutheran Confessionalization (Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Variorum,
1996), 911; Kolb, Confessional Lutheran Theology, in The Cambridge Companion to the
Reformation, ed. David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004), 72.
47 Ibid., 99.
48 Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 15201620,
Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, gen. ed., Richard A. Muller (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1999), 42. Joachim Westphal also published a Luther quotation list in 1549, pointing out
that the context of Luthers earlier statements about protecting tender consciences had changed. Ibid.,
43.
49 Peterson, Johan Pfeffingers Treatises, in Confessionalization in Europe, 101.
- 70 -
All ceremonies and ecclesiastical usages are free in themselves, as ever.

But when they are imposed through coercion, or through the erroneous
impression that they are required for worship, or through deceit, scandal,
or public pressure from the godless, and when they do not benefit Gods
church in some way, but disrupt it and mock God, then they are no longer
adiaphora.50
Nikolaus Gallus explained that Lutheran thinking on adiaphora further distinguished
them from all others: To distinguish ourselves from Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, Papists,
Interimists, Adiaphorists, and others with novel and strange teachings . . . we are taking the
right middle road by neither rejecting nor endorsing all ceremonies.51 Adiaphora even
distinguished Lutheran from Lutheran, as the tumultuous pastor, Tilemann Hesshusen
(15271588), warned his readers to beware of the wolfs howling of the Adiaphorists, who
insist that our confession is not reflected in surplices or external garb and ceremonies.52
The Formula of Concord
With the Peace of Augsburg (1555) there was relative peace on the issue of adiaphora,
although there were at least two Lutheran camps. Eventually the desire for reconciliation and
unity led to the Formula of Concord in 1577. One of the sources for the Formula were
Jakob Andreaes Six Christian Sermons of 1573. In his fourth sermon he preached on
adiaphora. He chronicled the history of the controversy, explaining that those in favor of
the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims compromised because the churches would be deserted
or handed over to the wolves, and the faithful servants of the church would be driven into
misery with their poor orphans and children, while those opposed taught and zealously
contended that at such a time and in such a situation you should neither accept nor yield on
the least little thing to please the enemies of Gods Word.53 The reason for this opposition
was that this matter arose not just over the surplice and that sort of thing; it concerned an
important article of our Christian religion, Christian freedom.54 By taking away Christian
freedom, papist errors such as the falsification of the doctrine of justification and of
repentance would result.55
Andreae went on to address how the common layman should respond in such a
situation:
50 Cited in Nischan, Ritual and Protestant Identity, 144.

51 Cited in Ibid., 14445.
52 Cited in Ibid., 145. For a brief description of Hesshusens tumult in Heidelberg over the cup at
the Lords Supper see J. I. Good, The Origin of the Reformed Church in Germany (Reading, PA:
Daniel Miller, 1887), 14445; R. Scott Clark, The Evangelical Fall From the Means of Grace: The
Lords Supper, in The Compromised Church: The Present Evangelical Crisis, ed. John H., Armstrong
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 13347.
53 Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concord, 93.
54 Ibid., 93.
55 Ibid., 94.
- 71 -
A layman should look at the Ten Commandments in his catechism and

take to heart the First Commandment, which says: I am the Lord your
God, etc. You shall have no other gods before Me. The Lord Himself
has explained this commandment through Moses: Everything that I
command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take
from it (Deut. 12:32).56
The conclusion the layman should derive from the First Commandment is that God has
commanded us whatever is necessary; what He has not commanded is not necessary. When
something is added, therefore, and taught as necessary for observance, it is sin for the one to
impose it just as it is sin to offend someone by being burdened by it.57 Why is this sin?
Andreae goes on to say because the truth of the holy Gospel stands or falls with the
matter.58 Andreaes Puritan-sounding language that God has commanded us whatever is
necessary [and] what He has not commanded is not necessary, is Luthers principle in
summary after the decades of controversy.
Moving to the Formula of Concord, it is divided into two parts, the Solid Declaration,
which is much longer, and the Epitome, which was drawn up by Andreae as a summary.59
We will examine this shorter document since it gives the essence of the longer.60
Article ten of the Epitome, entitled, Concerning Ecclesiastical Practices, Which are
Called Adiaphora or Indifferent Matters, is introduced by saying, A dispute also occurred
among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession over ceremonies or ecclesiastical
practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in Gods Word but that were
introduced in the churches for the sake of good order and decorum.61 Then the status
controversiae was explained to be whether in a time of persecution certain ceremonies that
had been abolished . . . could be revived under the pressure and demand of the opponents,
and whether compromise with them in such ceremonies and indifferent matters would be
proper.62
The Epitome went on to express affirmative theses, described as The Proper, True
Teaching and Confession concerning This Article, and negative thesis, described as False
Teaching concerning This Article. The positive theses were the following:
1. That ceremonies or ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded
nor forbidden in Gods Word, but have been established only for good
order and decorum, are in and of themselves neither worship ordained by
God nor a part of such worship.
56 Ibid., 94
57 Ibid., 94.
58 Ibid., 95.
59 The Book of Concord. 514.
60 For the Solid Declaration see Ibid., 63540.
61 Ibid., 515.
62 Ibid., 515.
- 72 -
2. That the community of God in every place and at every time has the
authority to alter such ceremonies according to its own situation, as may
be most useful and edifying for the community of God.
3. That all frivolity and offense must be avoided, and special consideration
must be given particularly to those who are weak in faith.
4. That in a time of persecution, when an unequivocal confession of the
faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the opponents in such
indifferent matters . . . For in such a situation it is no longer indifferent
matters that are at stake. The truth of the gospel and Christian freedom
are at stake. The confirmation of open idolatry, as well as the protection
of the weak in faith from offense, is at stake.
5. That no church should condemn another because the one has fewer or
more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other has,
when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles
of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments.63
In the next section, the Epitome listed its negative theses against false teaching on the
indifferent matters:
1. That human commands and prescriptions in the church are to be
regarded in and of themselves as worship ordained by God or a part of it.
2. When anyone imposes such ceremonies, commands, and prescriptions
upon the community of God with coercive force as if they were
necessary, against its Christian freedom, which it has in external matters.
3. That in a situation of persecution, when public confession is necessary,
one may comply or come to terms with the enemies of the holy gospel in
these indifferent matters and ceremonies.
4. When such external ceremonies and indifferent matters are abolished in a
way that suggests that the community of God is not free at all times,
according to its specific situation, to use one or more of these ceremonies
in Christian freedom, as is most beneficial to the church.64
Adiaphora Versus The Calvinists
The Adiaphora Controversy and the eventual settlement in the Formula of Concord also
brought the Lutherans into controversy with the Reformed. Again, Bodo Nischan has
shown that liturgical adiaphora became a mark of confessional identity especially in German
63 Ibid., 51516.
64 Ibid., 516.
- 73 -
lands that shifted from Lutheran to Reformed such as Brandenburg, Anhalt, and Saxony.65
In Nischans words: Some of the very same liturgical practices which earlier critics of the
interim had condemned as Catholicising, many followers of the Augsburg Confession were
now defending as a useful prophylactic against Reformed and other sacramentarian
perversions.66 In 1591 the Wittenberg theologian, Zacharias Rivander, explained that a
simple layman could know a minister was Reformed not by his confession, but by his
liturgical practice: If he distributes Holy Communion without reverence . . . [and] runs to
the altar like a hog to its trough.67 At this same time in Anhalt, Johannes Olearius explained
what the introduction of the Calvinism looked like: the public ceremonies of the mass that
we have kept to instruct people . . . florid descant, church organs, altars, wax candles, mass
vestments, golden vessels, communion hosts, genuflecting as one approaches the Lords
Table, and similar practices were removed.68 This was an accurate description, and no mere
propaganda, as the Calvinist Duke Johann Georg of Anhalt said, Exorcism [in baptism] . . .
altars, crucifixes, pictures, chasubles, mass vestments, capes, candles, etc. do [not] belong
among Christian ceremonies.69
The Fractio Panis
The two Protestant confessions showed their theology through liturgy especially in the
sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper. With the Lords Supper, among other things,
the breaking of the bread (fractio panis) became debated. The issue was the doctrine of the
presence of Christ in the Suppernot whether he was presentbut how. In the words of
Simon Gedicke, With their theatrical fraction the Calvinists do not merely wish to break the
bread, but signify the absent body and deny the real presence of Christ.70 This is confirmed
by the Heidelberg theologian, Zacharius Ursinus, who in his commentary on Heidelberg
Catechism question and answer seventy-seven, said, The breaking of the bread is, therefore,
a necessary ceremony both on account of its signification, and for the confirmation of our
faith, and it is to be retained in the celebration of the Supper. His reasons were four: first,
because Christ commanded do this; second, because the apostles example was to call the
entire sacrament the breaking of bread; third, to comfort us that Christs body was broken
on the cross for us as certainly as we see the bread broken; and, fourth, That the doctrine
of transubstantiation and consubstantitation may be rejected, and abandoned.71
65 On the struggles over the Calvinist Reformation in Brandenburg and its effects on the Lutheran-
Calvinist debate over adiaphora, see Bodo Nischan, Prince, People, and Confession: The Second
Reformation in Brandenburg (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994).
66 Nischan, Ritual and Protestant Identity, 145.
67 Ibid., 146.
68 Ibid., 146.
69 Ibid., 147.
70 Ibid., 150. Cf. Bodo Nischan, The Fracio Panis: A Reformed Communion Practice in Late
Reformation Germany. Church History 53 (1984): 1729.

71 Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism,
trans. G. W. Williard (1852; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, reprinted 1985), 385. Cf. the
Basel Old Testament scholar and preacher, Johannes Wollebius (15861629), who wrote in his
- 74 -
Exorcism in Baptism
While the Reformed considered exorcism in baptism to be a papal relic, the Lutherans
kept the service, utilizing Martin Luthers translation and adaptation of the service as a
powerful prayer whereby the childs sinfulness and total dependence on Gods grace is
acknowledged.72 Nischan illustrates the popular response to the Calvinist attempt at
cleansing the baptismal service in Saxony and Anhalt in the 1590s. Many pastors refused to
submit to the new ruling. One country pastor was afraid of being stoned and chased out of
town if he refused to include exorcism; a riot broke out in Zeitz; in Naumberg, over 200
parishioners walked out of a service when the pastor, who deleted the ceremony, began his
sermon, those parishioners refused to take communion from this pastor while neighboring
churches that kept the rite were overcrowded with worshippers. Most illustrative is the
account of a Dresden butcher who stood next to the baptismal font with a meat cleaver in
hand, threatening the minister if he excluded the ceremony.73
Seventeenth Century Expression
Early in the seventeenth century, the Wittenberg theologian Leonard Hutter (15631616)
published his Compendium locorum theologicorum (1610), which was used as a Lutheran
textbook for some time.74 In article eighteen he exposited the doctrine of Christian liberty
and church usages, or, adiaphora, in a series of eighteen questions and answers. As the rest
of the Latin title suggests, Hutters compendium was derived ex Scripturis Sacris et libro
concordiae, therefore it follows very closely the Lutheran confessional material cited above.
Hutter begins by stating the doctrine of Christian liberty from sin, the devil, the curse of
the law and everlasting death, and the yoke of Levitical ceremonies and human traditions.75
There are four degrees of liberty, the fourth of which is freedom from human ordinances in
the church; namely, that such ordinances are not considered a ground of divine worship, of
merit, or of unavoidable necessity, but that they can be neglected and omitted without
sin.76 These ordinances concern ceremonies and external usages . . . for the maintenance
Compendium Theologiae Christianae (1626), The breaking of bread is not adiaphoristic. Reformed
Dogmatics: Seventeenth-Century Reformed Theology Through the Writings of Wollebius, Voetius,
and Turretin, ed. and trans. John W. Beardslee III (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 133.
72 Nischan, Ritual and Protestant Identity, 151.
73 Ibid., 153
74 For a summary of worship practices in Lutheranism from the sixteenth through the eighteenth
centuries, see Joseph Herl, Insights from Early Lutheran Worship (WELS National Worship
Conference, July 2223, 2002) [Published online at: http://www.wels.net/s3/uploaded/6038/herl-
presentation.pdf]. The ideas in this paper can be read in their entirety in Joseph Herl, Worship Wars in
Early Lutheranism: Choir, Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004).
75 Leonard Hutter, Compend of Lutheran Theology. A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Dervived
From the Word of God and the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. H. E.
Jacobs and G. F. Spieker (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Book Store, 1868), 153.
76 Ibid., 15354.
- 75 -
of proper order and wholesome discipline in the church such as distinctions of times, of
festivals, of dress, also of hymns, lessons for the different Sundays, and prayers.77 Those
ordinances that may be observed without sin must be retained so long as the consciences of
men dare not be burdened . . . as if such a service were necessary to salvation (Augsburg
Confession, Art. xv.).78 The danger of this is that both Gods grace of justification and his
commandments are obscured as well as the fact that consciences are bound.79 In the tenth
question, Hutter asks about the character of these ordinances so that the reader may
attain to greater certainty concerning them. These ordinances have a threefold character:
first, they dare not be impious, but must be of such a nature that they may be retained
without sin; second, they must be useful, that is, they must contribute to peace and good
order in the church; and third, they dare not burden the conscience, either by their
multitude, or by the false opinion that they are meritorious, a service of God, or necessary to
be done.80
Hutter ends his discussion of Christian liberty and adiaphora by dealing with them in
casu confessionis. He asks the question: But what is to be done in case of persecution, and
when the confession of our faith is involved? Is it allowable in that case to adopt new
adiaphora in favor of our opponents, or to abolish the old. Here Hutter covers the twofold
situation against Rome (adding new adiaphora) and Calvinists (abolishing the old
adiaphora). His answer is in harmony with classic Gnesio-Lutheranism that such a situation
is a casus confessionis: Neither is allowable. For such customs are no longer to be reckoned
among the adiaphora, which in any wise present the appearance of apostasy, or through
which, in order to escape persecution, it is pretended, externally, at least, that our religion
does not differ much from the doctrine of our opponents.81
Hutters next question and answer presses the point: Then you maintain, that we dare not,
in times of persecution, yield to our adversaries in regard to adiaphora? Answer: Certainly;
if at a time when the confession of the divine truth is demanded, the whole church and every
individual Christian, especially the ministers of the Word, are bound frankly and openly to
confess the genuine doctrine according to the Word of God . . . I maintain that we dare not
yield to our adversaries at such a time, even in such things, which truly and in themselves are
adiaphora.82
What is the driving force behind such a confession? Hutters next question asks, in effect,
what is the big deal, since these are merely adiaphora? His answer is that the issue is no
longer the adiaphora themselves, but
77 Ibid., 154.
78 Ibid., 154.
79 Ibid., 15455.
80 Ibid., 15859.
81 Ibid., 160.
82 Ibid., 16061.
- 76 -
. . . the chief article of our Christian faith, as the Apostle says, That the
truth of the Gospel might continue. For the truth of the Gospel is
obscured and perverted, either as soon as adiaphora or new observances
are by force and command imposed upon consciences for observance
[pace Rome], or when they are commanded to abolish the old [pace
Calvinists]; especially when this is done to confirm superstition, false
doctrine, and idolatry, and to suppress Christian liberty and pure
doctrine.83
Possible Commonality?
To move from Lutheranism to Calvinism in the area of liturgy in the prospect of finding
common ground on the issue of adiaphora would seem an impossibility given what was said
about contemporary expositions of the Reformed regulative principle over against the
Lutheran normative principle. Added to this is the historic position of the Presbyterians
and Independents in England.84 Yet at least one point of commonality can be found
between Lutheranism and the continental Reformers in the area of adiaphora with the use
of the so-called evangelical feast days.
The Continental Reformers, as opposed to English Presbyterianism and Independency
responded to the medieval system of worship in two ways.85 First, they re-established the
83 Ibid., 162.
84 Seen for example in the liturgical theology of John Owen. On Owen see Daniel R. Hyde, For
Freedom Christ Has Set Us Free: John Owens A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and Their
Imposition. The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008): 2942.
85 See James Hastings Nichols, Corporate Worship in the Reformed Tradition (Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster, 1968), 100; Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship That Is Reformed According to Scripture
(Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1984), 37, 161. Many have missed this important distinction between the
Continental Reformation (mid-1500s) and the later Presbyterian movement in Britain (mid-1600s).
This is exemplified in Douglas Kellys article, No Church Year for Presbyterians, Presbyterian
Journal (November 1979), in which he characteristically polarizes the Reformation in two approaches:
the Continental (by which he means Lutheran and Anglican) and Puritan (by which he means
Reformed and Presbyterian):
The great Protestant Reformation of the 1500s basically divided into two major camps in regard
to worship: the broader, Continental approach, and the stricter Puritan interpretation. Germany,
Scandinavia and, later, England followed the Continental approach, which retained a number of
medieval Roman Catholic rituals and practices in worship. They said, in effect, If something is not
expressly forbidden by Scripture, we can include it in our worship. Hence, they kept medieval non-
Scriptural innovations such as the Church Year, a complex liturgy and so on. This approach was
decisively rejected by our Presbyterian ancestors. In large areas of Switzerland, France, Holland,
England for one generation, Scotland, and then in the American colonies, especially New England, the
Reformed Churches adhered to the Puritan principles of worship. They wanted to be as close as they
could in every possible way to Gods revealed will in Scripture. Hence they said, in effect, We will not
allow in worship that which is not expressly required or instituted by Scripture. In other words, the
Continentals said that if something is not expressly forbidden, it is all right. The Puritan Presbyterians
- 77 -
Lords Day as the primary feast day and focal point of the Churchs worship and community
life. Second, while removing all holy days besides the Lords Day, the magisterial
Reformers retained what they called the evangelical feast days.86 Instead of viewing these
days as a part of the Christians accomplishment of his or her salvation, they viewed
celebrating these days as a celebration of the salvation which Christ had already
accomplished for them in his Incarnation (Christmas), death (Good Friday), resurrection
(Easter), ascending to the Father (Ascension), and giving of his Spirit (Pentecost).
The Palatinate
The first example of this was in the Palatinate, the electoral region of Germany whose
capital was Heidelberg, from where the Heidelberg Catechism originated. In the Reformed
Palatinate, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Christmas, as well as New Years Day were
celebrated.87 In the first hymnal published for Palatinate worship in 1565, there were 44
Psalms, 55 canticles, and 11 hymns. Later, in the second edition of 1573, all 150 Psalms were
included, the canticle section was expanded to include the Nunc Dimittis and Te Deum,
while the hymn section was divided into Luthers catechetical hymns, hymns for the church
calendar from Advent to Pentecost, and then topical hymns.88 The Palatinate liturgy,
contained in the Kirchenordnungen began with the following rubric:
Before the Sermon, especially in the morning on Sunday and holy days,
and on fast days, the following prayer shall be delivered to the people, in
which the Christian Congregation is explicitly reminded of the misery of
man, and the saving grace of God is implored, so that hearts become
humble and more desirous of receiving the Word of grace (Emphasis
added).89
The rubric entitled, Order of Holy Days, stated:
Order of Holy Days: Holy days shall be kept in the same manner as
Sunday. These holy days shall be observed: all Sundays, Christmas and the
day following, New Years day, Easter and the day following, Ascension
day, Pentecost and the Monday following.
On Christmas and the day after, the basis of our salvation, namely the two
natures in Christ with the benefit we obtain therefrom, shall be
said, That does not go far enough. Unless it is actually approved by the Bible, then it is not
acceptable.
86 For a helpful little introduction to this topic, see Leading in Worship, ed., Terry L. Johnson
(Oak Ridge: The Covenant Foundation, 1996), 103-4. See also Old, Worship, 34-37.
87 Nichols, Corporate Worship in the Reformed Tradition, 79.
88 Deborah Rahn Clemens, Foundations of German Reformed Worship in the Sixteenth Century
Palatinate (PhD diss., Drew University, 1995), 17172.

89 The Living Theological Heritage of the United Church of Christ, series ed., B. B. Zikmund, 3
vols. (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1997), 2:360.
- 78 -
expounded in the narratives of the birth of Christ, as that is dealt with in

the end of Part I and the beginning of Part II of the Catechism.
The Ministers in the towns are also permitted to begin to explain the
narratives of the Passion on Invocavit Sunday and pursue the same until
Easter, according to the convenience of each particular church.
On Easter and the Monday following, the narratives of Christ resurrection
shall be preached, so that the Christian congregation may receive good,
basic instruction from the holy, divine Scripture upon the two principle
articles of our Christian faith, namely, that Christ arose from the dead on
the third day, and that we woo shall arise from the dead.
The festival of Christs ascension also has its narratives, as they are written
in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 1, and elsewhere. Upon them, we may
teach and preach concerning those articles of our faith in which we
profess that Christ has ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of
God, and from thence will come to judge the living and the dead.
On Pentecost and the Monday following, the second chapter in the Acts
of the Apostles shall be the basis of preaching.90
The Kirchenordnungen specified the texts to be preached on Christmas, Easter,
Ascension, and Pentecost, while permitting freedom to the churches to celebrate Good
Friday on the Sunday of Invocavit.91 There are also prayers for Christmas, New Years
Day, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost.92
In his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Heidelbergs leading theologian,
Zacharius Ursinus (153483), gave the justification for this practice in answer to the
question, Is it lawful for the Church to institute ceremonies? He commented that, The
church may and ought to institute certain ceremonies, inasmuch as the moral worship of
God cannot be observed without defining and fixing the various circumstances connected
with it. He went on to say that while it was proper for the church to institute ceremonies,
these had to be done under certain conditions:
1. They must not be unholy; but such as are agreeable to the word of God.
90 Ibid., 374 n4. Cf. Bard Thompson, The Palatinate Church Order of 1563. Church History 23:4
(December 1954): 33954.

91 Ibid., .
92 J. H. A. Bomberger, The Old Palatinate Liturgy of 1563. The Mercersburg Review 2:1 (January
1850): 84. For the prayers for Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, see J. H. A. Bomberger, The Old
Palatinate Liturgy of 1563. The Mercersburg Review 2:3 (May 1850): 27577. On Bombergers
contribution to the liturgy of the German Reformed Church in the mid-nineteenth century, see
Michael A. Farley, A Debt of Fealty to the Past: The Reformed Liturgical Theology of John H. A.
Bomberger. Calvin Theological Journal 39:2 (November 2004): 33256.
- 79 -
2. They must not be superstitioussuch as may easily lead men astray, so as

to attach to them worship, merit, or necessity, and which may occasion
offence when observed.
3. They must not be too numerous, so as to be oppressive and burdensome.
4. They must not be empty, insignificant, and unprofitable; but tend to
edification.93
Strassburg
In the city of Strassburg, Old Testament scholar Wolfgang Capito (14781541) and
liturgical reformer Martin Bucer (14911551) studied the issue of the church calendar. After
originally rejecting any day but the Lords Day in the 1524 Grund und Ursach, they came to
the position of celebrating the evangelical feast days.94 The Strassburg Psalter of 1537 and
after began to include festal hymns, especially those of the Church of Constance. This
would, of course, indicate the observance of these feasts. As well, in 1548, Martin Bucer, in
the name of the ministers of Strassburg, wrote A Brief Summary of Christian Doctrine in
response to an unnamed Anabaptist tract against them. One of the points Bucer took up was
Christian festivals, no doubt because these Anabaptists rejected the Lords Day as well as
other celebrations. After a brief exposition of the Lords Day, the general festival of the
Lord, Bucer went on to say:
In like manner must be observed the other festivals and seasons which
have been prescribed, with a view to the increase of godliness by
meditating upon the great deeds of the Lord accomplished for our
redemption and eternal salvation, and to the giving of thanks to God for
them. Such festivals are those of the Incarnation and Nativity of Christ, of
his Ascension, etc. (Emphasis added)95
Notice the purpose of these festivals was twofold: to increase godliness by means of
meditating upon the work of Christ and to give thanks for this work. What was the basis
upon which the Church celebrated such festivals? Later, in 1562 Bucers Lectures on
Ephesians were published. At the end of his lectures on chapter 1 he discusses the unity of
the Church and speaks of things necessary for unity and things indifferent (adiaphora),
saying, But unity is not necessary in anything not set forth in the word: here a degree of
liberty obtains. So in the matter of man-made rites, different arrangements can be made in
different quarters the better suited to edification.96 The observances in the Church are
divided into three classes:
93 Ursinus, Commentary, 574.

94 Ottoman Frederick Cypris, Basic Principles: Translation and Commentary on Martin Bucers
Grund und Ursach, 1524 (Th.D diss., Theological Seminary of New York, 1971), 142 cf. Old,
Worship, 36.
95 Common Places of Martin Bucer, trans. and ed., D. F. Wright, The Courtenay Library of
Reformation Classics 4 (Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), 90.

96 Ibid., 208.
- 80 -
1. Observances concerning which Scripture contains explicit instructions.

2. Observances which are not explicitly prescribed by Scripture but can
nevertheless be shown to be in accordance with Scripture [here Bucer
gives the examples of infant baptism, hallowing of the Lords Day, and
admission of women to the Lords Supper].
3. Observances instituted by revered men in the Church, such as the forms
of prayer, the times of fasting, lectionary arrangements, details of place,
etc. So long as they do not militate against the divine will but rather have
its promotion as their object and also have regard to complete doctrinal
purity.97
As well, in his 1549 treatise, The Restoration of Lawful Ordination for Ministers of the
Church, Bucer lists the points in which a candidate for the ministry was to be examined,
among them the following:
23. Whether he believes that we incur Gods stern displeasure when we
fail to devote the Lords Day and other specially consecrated days to godly
exercises, abandoning not merely useful physical labours but much more
all the useless and harmful works of the flesh . . . For whatever lawful
recreation to the people are granted, it can never be rightly permitted on
days specially set apart for divine worship.98
Church Order of the Synod of Dort
Finally, there is the testimony of the Church Order of the Synod of Dort (161819).
Before the Synod adopted what became the Church Order of all Reformed churches of
Dutch heritage, the earlier Synod of Dort (1574) spoke only of the Lords Day being
observed. Nevertheless it decided that the Sunday before Christmas ministers should preach
about the birth of Christ and that on both Easter and Pentecost Sundays, the resurrection
and outpouring of the Holy should also be preached.99 Then at the next Synod of Dort
(1578), it was decided to have sermons on Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, and the days
following them, as well as Ascension and New Years, because these were national holidays
upon which licentiousness was known to be rampant. The churches, then, used these
opportunities to gather the churches for holy exercises of piety rather than unholy partying
and living.100
97 Ibid., 210.
98 Ibid., 264.
99 Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin Monsma, The Church Order Commentary (reprint; Wyoming,
MI: Credo Books, 2003), 273, 274.

100 Ibid., 274.
- 81 -
And so the Synod of Dort, at the insistence of the commissioners from the States of
Holland,101 said the following regarding the feast days in its Church Order, article 67,
The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter,
and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities
and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of
Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this
is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them
conform with the others.102
The Principle Behind the Continental Practice
One example of how these feast days could be observed while holding to a Reformed
view of the regulative principle of worship is the Second Helvetic Confession. Written in
1561 by Heinrich Bullinger (150475), in it is confessed that the celebration of the
evangelical feast days belonged to the Christian liberty [of] the churches and were
approved of highly (ch. 24). Notice the fine distinction implicitly made between Romes
obligation and the Gospels freedom. Instead of viewing these days as a part of the
Christians ongoing contribution to salvation, these days were within the Gospel liberty of
the churches to commemorate the salvation that Christ had already accomplished for his
people. This was also the teaching of Johannes Wollebius (15861629), the Old Testament
scholar and cathedral preacher of Basel. In expositing the Sabbath commandment in his
1626 Compendium Theologiae Christianae, Wollebius said, The holy days of Christians,
instituted not because of human will-worship but as a means of reminding people of
Christs benefits, are similar to the Sabbath, provided they are not enforced as an absolute
necessity for conscience.103 The Christian Church, then, is not obligated, but free to
assemble for divine services in order to remember what Christ has already done for them.
Another example of this freedom is found in the Genevan theologian of the seventeenth
century, Francis Turretin (162387). In his Institutes of Elenctic Theology (1679), he
addressed the question of whether or not the churches were free to celebrate the high points
of Christs work or not on days other than the Lord Day: This the orthodox think should
be left to the liberty of the church. The reason is that their celebration is not from
necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion.104
Their observance is not due to any intrinsic holiness of the day, but to positive right and
ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept.105 Turretin
demonstrates that these days were celebrated in this manner by the Reformed in unity with
101 J.L. Schaver, The Polity of the Churches: Volume II (Chicago, IL: Church Polity Press, 1947),
164.
102 As cited in The Psalter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, July 1999 edition), 187.
103 Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae 2.7.2.15 in Reformed Dogmatics:
Seventeenth-Century Reformed Theology Through the Writings of Wollebius, Voetius, and Turretin,
ed. and trans. John W. Beardslee III (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 223.
104 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed.
James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 2:101.

105 Ibid., 2:101.
- 82 -
the ancient church, quoting the ancient historian Socrates, who in detailing the debate
between East and West on the celebration of Easter, said, Neither the apostles, nor the
gospel itself imposed the yoke of slavery upon those who yielded to the doctrine of Christ,
but left the festival of Easter and others to be celebrated according to the free and impartial
judgment of those who had received on such days blessings.106
This is illustrated as well, according to Turretin, by the examples of the celebration of
Purim and the Feast of Dedication by the Jews. These celebrations do not prove that this
custom ought to prevail in the Christian church, but, It shows only that on certain days
(annually recurring) there may be a public commemoration of the singular benefits of God,
provided abuses, the idea of necessity, mystery and worship, superstition and idolatry be
absent.107 And so, as Turretin concludes, If some Reformed churches still observe some
festivals . . . they differ widely from the papists, for four reasons:
1. These days are dedicated to God alone, and not to creatures;
2. No sanctity, power, or efficacy is attached to them above other days;
3. Believers are not bound to a scrupulous and strict abstinence on these
days from servile work;
4. The church is not bound by necessity to observe these days
unchangeably.108
Conclusion
In these principles of Christian freedom and not obligation, the increase of piety, and the
celebration of the finished work of Christ, expounded by Bullinger, Wollebius, the Synod of
Dort, and Turretin, we find the area of commonality between Calvinsim and Lutheranism on
the issue of adiaphora. These principles, then, bring us full-circle to where we started with
Lutheranism. As we have seen, the Lutheran doctrine and practice of adiaphora was not
established to allow anything in worship. Instead, it was developed in polemics with Rome as
a way to protect the faithful from the righteousness of rites and to place ones faith in Jesus
Christ alone. As well, it was meant to protect the weak in faith from the turmoil of the
Reformation, allowing certain ceremonies for the sake of peace and order in church and
society. During times of upheaval in Lutheran-lands-turned-Calvinist, adiaphora became
occasions to proclaim the freedom won for Gods people by Christ that allowed them to
celebrate or not celebrate certain ceremonies in their freedom. While at times in polemics
with Rome the Gnesio-Lutherans sounded like later English Puritansa far cry from the
popular caricature of Lutheranism by PuritansLutheranism differed from its Calvinist
cousins by including among adiaphora many more things that were seen as papal leftovers
by the Reformed.
106 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, rev. A.C. Zenos in Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers: Second Series (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, reprinted 2004), 130. The translation offered here
is that of Turretin, Institutes, 2:101.
107 Turretin, Institutes, 2:102.
108 Ibid., 2:103.
- 83 -

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME: ATTEMPTS AT

CLASSIFYING NORTH AMERICAN PROTESTANT
WORSHIP109
Lester Ruth110
How would you classify the worship of your church or parish? It is contemporary or
traditional? Are those terms too limited? Would the terms found in some recent youth
ministry training materials be more helpful? In that case, would you classify your worship as
linear or organic?111 Are you still at a loss for the right classification? Would these terms
from a recent online worship forum be more accurate: multi-sensory worship, indigenous
worship, innovative worship, transformation worship, blended worship, praise
services, spirited traditional, creative, or classic worship?112 Or would ethnic or racial
designators be more descriptive of your services character? Is it helpful to label your
worship service as African-American, Hispanic, Euro-American, or by some other
similar designation?113
Has the exactly right term not been mentioned yet? If so, then how about multi-media
worship, authentic worship, liturgical worship, praise and worship, or seeker
services?114 Perhaps terms rooted in various intended audiences would be better:
believer-oriented worship, believer-oriented worship made visitor-friendly, or visitor-
oriented worship.115 Some now advocate classifications by generations. And so is your
worship service boomer, buster, Gen-X, or millenials worship?
109 From chapter 2 of Conviction of Things Not Seen, The: Worship and Ministry in the 21st
Century (2002), Todd Johnson (ed). Used by kind permission of Baker Publishing Group.
110 Lester Ruth, PhD, is Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship at Asbury Theological
Seminary. His books include: A Little Heaven Below: Worship at Early Methodist Quarterly Meetings
(Kingswood Books, 2000), Accompanying the Journey: A Handbook for Sponsors (Discipleship
Resources, 1997), Creative Preaching on the Sacraments (with Craig Satterlee; Discipleship Resources,
2001), and Early Methodist Life and Spirituality: A Reader (Kingswood Books, 2005).
111 As found in recent Youth Specialties training material. Cited by permission of Dan Kimball,
Santa Cruz Bible Church, Santa Cruz, California in an email to the author, 14 March 2001. The terms
refer to the logical sequencing of actions within worship. Organic provides opportunity for multi-
layering of actions.
112 As used in July and August, 2000 on the online forum accessed through
<www.easumbandy.com/forums.htm>.
113 Kathy Black, Worship Across Cultures: A Handbook (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998). Black
analyzes worship in Southern California in twenty-one different ethnic groups.

114 For multi-media worship, see Paul Franklyn, Tech-Knowledge for Ministry: Multimedia
Worship, Net Results (1997): 4; for authentic worship, Sally Morganthaler, Out of the Box:
Authentic Worship in a Postmodern Culture, Worship Leader (May/June 1998): 24-32; for
liturgical, praise and worship, and seeker, see Andy Langford, Transitions in Worship: Moving
from Traditional to Contemporary (Abingdon, 1999), 18.
115 Timothy Wright, A Community of Joy: How to Create Contemporary Worship (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1994), 57.
- 85 -
As you can see, there exists a dizzying array of terms and classifications for worship. This
diversity of classification schemes reflects the current state of Protestant worship in North
America. A cacophony of terms describe the wide range of worship services. Even single
resources can contribute to the Babel of classification schemes. In one recent anthology on
worship, for example, the titles for the various essays showed designations derived by
stylistic, theological, ethnic, and age-specific considerations.116
Is it possible to find some resemblance of order within these widely different taxonomies
for worship? To do so here, the first step will be to take a look at four current taxonomies,
recognizing their strengths and limitations. Then, building on some of these taxonomies and
filtering the usable data through some categories derived from Robert Webber, I hope to
suggest some ways of classifying North American Protestant approaches to worship that are
true to their breadth. While the new schemes do not exhaust all possible taxonomies,
hopefully they will offer some helpful designations. The suggested taxonomy will use
classifications based on the nature of liturgical commemoration (what is remembered over
time from worship service to service?), the dominant sacramental principle in a
congregations worship (what is the primary way worshipers assess Gods presence in
worship?), and liturgical polity (what is the method by which worship is planned in individual
congregations?). These taxonomical categories are suggested because they are broad enough
to be able to be applied to all North American Protestant worship and yet are important
enough to show true differences among these Christians worship today.
A Popular Scheme: The Traditional/Contemporary/Blended Worship Taxonomy
One of the most used classification schemes today is this set of terms: traditional,
contemporary, and blended worship. Among American Protestants, these terms are
pervasive in conversations, in popular literature, and, unfortunately, in worship wars. A
sizable number of Protestant churches have moved to offering multiple worship services
every week, distinguishing between services by these labels.
Despite their pervasiveness and some kind of assumption about general meaning, the
terms specific meanings are unclear. Very often they are code words. Traditional
designates what we have been doing, usually meaning a way of mainstream Protestant
worship reflecting practices of the mid-twentieth century with roots in the Victorian Era.
Contemporary typically designates what we could or should be doing. Often what is in
mind is worship with some combination of these contemporary characteristics: worship
attuned to popular culture, particularly in entertainment forms; use of music which is highly
repetitive, syncopated, and reflective of pop music; a reliance upon electronic technology; a
quick pace and rhythm in the service; minimal ceremonial; an informal style of leadership;
and the use of worship leaders to demonstrate the physical and emotional dimensions of
116 Experience God in Worship (Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, Inc., 2000). The categories used
included convergence, liturgical, contemporary, evangelical, African-American,

Charismatic, and Gen-X.
- 86 -
worship.117 In popular usage blended worship tends to refer to worship using a variety of
types of music, that is, both traditional hymnody and contemporary choruses.118 While
somemost notably theologian Robert Webber119have a more sophisticated, nuanced use
of the term, the term frequently amounts to little more than an quota system for music and
dramatic skits.
All these terms, traditional, contemporary, and blended worship, have severe
limitations and should be rejected in any serious taxonomy of worship. Simply put, as
commonly used, they are too general of terms for too limited a phenomenon.
For one thing, their limited usefulness is seen in that many of the works that seek to
explore how to do contemporary worship sometimes include within contemporary what
might be popularly designated as traditional. For example, one recent writer includes as
one of the types of contemporary worship what he calls liturgical.120 What he describes as
liturgical worship, however, others would label as traditional. If the terms are that fluid,
what real meaning do they have?
The traditional/contemporary taxonomy suffers other serious limitations. Given
worships inherent conservatism (over time congregations tend to stabilize and maintain
patterns, even if newly created), eventually the term contemporary must fall out of usage
or churches will end up with the oxymoron of traditional contemporary worship in a few
generations.
In addition, those who use traditional/contemporary language usually have too limited a
historical horizon. From one angle, contemporary worship really is not. When I reviewed
the multiple orders of worship for so-called contemporary worship on an online forum,
for instance, all the orders reflected a very traditional order of worship featuring
proclamation as the climatic act. Such an order of worship with a different stylistic veneer
has been the mainstay of much American Protestant worship for a couple of centuries.
Other than a change in the stylistic veneer, what is truly contemporary about that? Similarly,
using a longer historical horizon, traditional worship really is not. By traditional most do
117 Compare the characterization in Daniel T. Benedict and Craig Kennet Miller, Contemporary
Worship for the 21st Century: Worship or Evangelism? (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1994), 10-
16 and 120.
118 See, for example, Eva Stimson, Praise God with Guitars and Organ? Presbyterians Today
(September 1998): 12.

119 See Robert Webber, Signs of Wonder: The Phenomenon of Convergence in Modern Liturgical
and Charismatic Church (Nashville: Abbott Martyn, 1992); republished as The Worship Phenomenon:
A Dynamic New Awakening in Worship is Reviving the Body of Christ (Nashville: Star Song, 1994);
republished as Blended Worship: Achieving Substance and Relevance in Worship (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994). See also Webbers Renew Your Worship: A Study in the Blending of Traditional
and Contemporary Worship (Hendrickson, 1997), Planning Blended Worship: The Creative Mixture
of Old & New (Abingdon, 1998), and Robert Webber et al., Renew! Songs & Hymns for Blended
Worship (Carol Stream, IL: Hope Publishing Company, 1995).
120 Langford, Transitions in Worship, 18. See also Benedict and Miller, Contemporary Worship for
the 21st Century.
- 87 -
not have in mind deep worship traditions, whether those of the early church or of
originators of various Protestant movements like Luther or Wesley.
Consequently, the traditional/contemporary taxonomy is inadequate for describing
certain whole approaches to worship, whether denominationally or congregationally. For
example, how should we classify a vibrant congregation of Quakers worshiping in complete
silence until they receive the Holy Spirits unction to leave. Is this traditional because it
follows a classic Quaker approach having a long history back to the seventeenth century? Or
it is contemporary because the worshipers might be wearing casual clothing? Since there is
no music at all, musical style cannot be the key to classifying this service. And what about an
African-American congregation using a Black Gospel setting for a classically structured
eucharistic service? Is it contemporary because the music has been composed recently and
has a beat? Or is it traditional because many of the texts can be traced back to the patristic
era as can the basic order of worship? Similarly, what about the two Episcopal churches
close to my home using their Book of Common Prayer eucharistic services albeit with a
praise team leading the music while the congregation follows the service on PowerPoint
projections? Is this traditional or contemporary? Is it blended even though there is
only one style of music and leadership?
Seeing the limitations in the terminology, some scholars show signs of moving away from
the traditional/contemporary taxonomy. Leonard Sweet is one. Seeking a term that speaks
more of worship emerging from a worshiping people rather than merely being imitated from
elsewhere, he prefers the term indigenous over contemporary.121 Others reject the all-
too-often antagonistic positioning of the terms (traditional vs. contemporary), noting that
each speaks of qualities desirable for all worship services:
Attempts to reform worship that rely exclusively on either traditional or
contemporary models are not adequate solutions to our longing for more
faithful worship. This is actually a false dichotomy since authentic
Christian worship is by necessity both contemporary and traditional. It is
traditional because it must continue the story of Jesus Christ in the world
in history, and it is contemporary because it must be engaged with the
present, with actual people who live in particular cultures.122
Even the blended worship term is too limited for serious use since too often it just
describes a kind of quota system to worship. As one scholar recently lampooned: [In] many
congregationswell do a traditional hymn, then well do a praise song. Well have the
classic structure, but well spice it up with skits. A little of this and a little of that, and
121Leonard Sweet, Soul Tsunami: Sink or Swim in New Millennium Culture (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999), 390-1.

122 L. Edward Phillips and Sara Webb Phillips, In Spirit & Truth: United Methodist Worship for
the Emerging Church (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 2000), 30. See also Thomas G. Long, Beyond
the Worship Wars: Building Vital and Faithful Worship (The Alban Institute, 2001), 3 and Marianne
Sawicki, How Can Christian Worship Be Contemporary? in What is Contemporary Worship?, ed.
Gordon Lathrop (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995), 27.
- 88 -
everyone will be happy.123 Such an approach to blended worship tends to deal only with the
surface of worship performance without dealing with more substantial issues of worships
structure, content, and purpose.124
Given that these termstraditional/contemporary/blendedare too ill-defined and
are likely to pass away from usage, a comprehensive taxonomy for North American worship
must be found elsewhere.
A Polemical, Apologetic Scheme: The Taxonomy of William Easum and Thomas
Bandy
Well-known church consultants William (Bill) Easum and Thomas (Tom) Bandy provide
an example of a liturgical taxonomy shaped by a polemic that seeks to promote a certain
evangelistic agenda. Easum and Bandy work together as Easum, Bandy & Associates, an
organization that provides a range of church educational and consulting services. They
publish both individually and collectively. According to its web-posted approach to
ministry, this organization helps leaders organize priorities, identify goals, innovate new
strategies, and motivate congregations to address the spiritually yearning, institutionally
alienated seekers of today. They claim to have prepared more than 75,000 church leaders in
the United States and Canada since 1988.125
It is somewhat inaccurate to speak of a single taxonomy by Easum and Bandy. Their
writings reflect related but ever shifting sets of terms to classify worship. In an short 1997
essay, Easum lays out an early two-term taxonomy: traditional and contemporary.126
According to Easum, the former is a form of worship that uses the printed page, a sixteenth
century of music and linear, somber, slow forms of printed liturgy. Creeds and quiet are
important, too. Contemporary worship, in contrast, does not have much quiet time; it
produces a visual experience and uses indigenous music that is plugged-in and turned
up.
In their joint book published that same year, Easum and Bandy offer several taxonomies
for classifying worship. The most fundamental in the book is a variation of the
traditional/contemporary scheme. Seeking to define basic categories to begin worship
planning, the two describe three possibilities: traditional, praise, and sensory
worship.127 In traditional worship, participants give thanks in formal, historically
grounded, rational ways. This track is for those who prefer robes, hymnals, creeds, quiet
123 Long, Beyond the Worship Wars, 12.

124 Constance Cherry, Blended Worship: What It Is, What It Isnt, Reformed Worship 55 (March
2000), 6-8.
125 About Us. Easum, Bandy, & Associates Organizational Assumptions, 12 July 2001
<http://www.easumbandy.com/about.htm#Mission>.
126 William M. Easum, Worship in a Changing Culture, in Contemporary Worship: A
Sourcebook for Spirited-Traditional, Praise and Seeker Services, ed. Tim and Jan Wright (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1997), 17-8.
127 William M. Easum and Thomas G. Bandy, Growing Spiritual Redwoods (Nashville: Abingdon,
1997), 73. A comparative chart is provided on pp. 73-4.
- 89 -
time, and Elizabethan-type music. Praise worship seeks to release the emotions and
express the joy many people who were formerly estranged from relationship with Jesus now
feel. Praise worship is a celebration focusing on a certain kind of music. It is a
spectator or entertainment style of worship, with little quiet time and no emphasis on
guilt. Sensory worship is characterized by a heavy use of other forms of sensory
experience other than hearing. It occurs less in words, and more in the sights and sounds,
images an music, that surround the worship experience. It consists of permeating sights and
sounds, video and visuals rather than print or verbal speech, and extra-loud, plugged-in,
turned-up music. 128 Easum and Bandy connect this taxonomy to generational appeal:
traditional worship appeals to those who by physical age or mental orientation find
some form of Christendom worship meaningful, praise worship to baby boomers, and
sensory worship to the vast majority of people born after 1965.129
This traditional/praise/sensory taxonomy is not the only one in this same book,
Growing Spiritual Redwoods. Elsewhere they speak of transactive worship (conveys the
gospel across gaps), interactive worship (involves participants in a reciprocal or mutually
shared thanksgiving), and actualized worship (makes faith as realistic and comprehensive
as possible).130 Later in their book, the two men provide a taxonomy based on different ways
worship services can respond to human need. This taxonomy offers four options: healing,
coaching, cherishing, and rejoicing worship.131 They provide another taxonomy of a
sort later in the book when they describe the characteristics of indigenous worship. Such
worship makes experience more important than content, is interconnected with everyday
life, uses indigenous music, uses video and sound systems as crucial elements, replaces choir
practices with technology rehearsal, and has constant, uninterrupted flow.132
In subsequent writings, Easum and Bandy continue to evolve their taxonomies. In a 2000
article on multi-tracking worship in a congregation (that is, providing multiple worship
opportunities targeted at different groups spiritual needs), Bandy expands a taxonomy laid
out earlier, noting differences in healing, coaching, cherishing, celebration, and
traditional worship.133 Similarly, Easum takes the earlier traditional/contemporary or
traditional/praise/sensory categories and adds some qualitative adjectives. According to
Easum, he now sees four kinds of worship services: spiritless traditional, spirited
traditional, praise, and postmodern. 134 For Easum, spiritless traditional is the most
prevalent, found in 80% of churches. It is slow, linear, and predictable with people able to
sleep through them. The music is slow and played on organs. The service is filled with dead
spots. To outsiders these services feel lifeless, dull, and boring. Spirited traditional is found
in less than 10% of churches according to Easum. It is characterized by passion in the pulpit
128 Ibid., 74-5.

129 Ibid., 72.
130 Ibid., 76-7. These categories are not real clear. They appear to deal with individual types of
interactions with the gospel message.

131 Ibid., 80-3.
132 Ibid., 94-5.
133 Thomas G. Bandy, How Do We Multi-Track Our Worship, Net Results 21, 7 (July 2000): 17.
134 William M. Easum, What I Now See in Worship, Net Results 21, 6 (June 2000): 20-22.
- 90 -
and vitality in the pews. It moves with precision with lots of good music. Despite its current
vitality, however, it reflects a culture whose day has long passed. Praise worship is used
by 90% of growing churches in Easums opinion. The most notable element of the service is
the music itself. Other common characteristics include solid preaching, drama, informal
atmosphere, and no dead spots. Postmodern worship uses a variety of musical styles in
an ever changing tide of services. It uses every form of technology, offers a clear and
uncompromising message, and develops authenticity, intimacy, and community.
Although the precise terms vary from publication to publication, there are several
constants in the Easums and Bandys taxonomies. For one thing, their tone does not vary.
The taxonomies are polemical and apologetic throughout. The two men bring an
iconoclastic tendency to their descriptions. Determined to advocate measures that will
achieve evangelistic success, the two consultants attach descriptions to their categories that
will make what they are advocating the most attractive and what they consider problematic
the least attractive. There is no concern for detached, objective description.
Indeed, there tends to be a certain kind of dualism running throughout their liturgical
writings. In their opinion, some ways of worship are bad; others are good. Generally, those
they associate with mainstream Protestant forms of the latter half of the twentieth century
are bad because they show so little potential for accomplishing Easums and Bandys
evangelistic goals. In Easums terminology, these are the spiritless traditional services. The
men describe these services in very harsh terms. In contrast, the two consultants portray
other kinds of worship in glowing terms.
Standing behind this dualism is the two mens fundamental concern: what they perceive
as peoples experience in worship. Easums and Bandys classification schemes are really
taxonomies of how they understand people to be responding to the current variety in
worship. They root their taxonomical method in a concern for a personal positive experience
in worship. Consider the emphasis on personal experience as a fundamental category in
Easums summary of worship: No matter what type of worship a church uses, one thing is
important: People must experience the transforming presence of God. Anything less isnt
worship, no matter the style.135 The two typically see newer forms of mainstream Protestant
worship as creating positive experiences.
This concern for experience has two facets within their thought. One is assessing
peoples immediate reaction to different kinds of worship. The other is an emphasis on
communicating in a culturally accessible way as the primary purpose of worship. Thus Bandy
can suggest two reasons why people are not attending his readers worship service. Either
your current worship service does not address their spiritual needs or your current
worship service does not communicate in their cultural forms.136 These concerns color their
taxonomies thoroughly. Easum and Bandy view a category of worship highly if they see it
creating a positive experience of Christ in people.137 Likewise, since a primary purpose of
135 Ibid., 22.

136 Bandy, How Do We Multi-Track Our Worship, 15.
137 Only a few statements indicate a concern with the theological content of worship. See Easum
and Bandy, Growing Spiritual Redwoods, 51-2.
- 91 -
worship is communication, ways of worshiping that they see using newer communication
forms receive a more glowing endorsement.
There are several limitations in Easums and Bandys taxonomies. The first comes from
their writings polemical nature. They are so eager to advocate a certain approach to be
adopted by churches that too often their descriptions fall into caricatures. This is true even
for the types of worship that they advocate. Their writings universalize their own
experiences and perceptions of the struggles in mainstream Protestantism.138 Their biases
seep through, cutting off consideration of worships true breadth. Consider, for example,
two depictions of traditional worship. Traditional worship involves robes, hymnals,
creeds, quiet time, and Elizabethan-type music and the linear, somber, slow forms of
printed liturgy.139 Using our recurring touchstones, how would this description apply to a
African-American congregation using a Black Gospel musical setting for their weekly
eucharistic service or to an Episcopal eucharistic service using so-called contemporary
music? Consider another caricature: the idea that sensory worship that appeals to younger
adults will use extra-loud, plugged-in, turned-up music.140 How does this caricature square
with the increasingly popular phenomenon of young adults attracted to services using the
quiet, contemplative music of Taiz, the ecumenical community of France?141 Unfortunately,
if one does not read carefully, Easums and Bandys prescriptions for worship too often
verge on being absolutebut inaccuratedescriptions of worship.
Another limitation to the Easum and Bandy writings is their lack of emphasis on the
theological content of worship. Given their liturgical method (the use of qualitative
categories based on worshipers positive responses and the presumption that numerical
growth validates worship practices), it would be possible to misuse their categories to make
legitimate forms of worship which should otherwise be illegitimate for Christians. For
example, the shallowness of their categories connecting inspirational and spirited to
transformative could be used to affirm classic Shaker worship of the nineteenth century
despite its heterodox anti-Trinitarian theology. The Shakers were evangelizing effectively
with new forms of worship that moved people (literally) and resulted in transformed lives.
Could not Easums and Bandys categories be used to affirm this worship although it was
clearly unorthodox? Admittedly, the two men do not overtly advocate unorthodox worship
but, given the lack of theological concern in their taxonomies, one wonders why Shaker
worship would not fall into their good categories. That is precisely the problem with an
intentionally dualistic, polemical taxonomy like theirs: too little thoughtfulness stands behind
the categories.
In addition, their classification schemes are limited in that any taxonomies that roots the
classifications in worshipers reaction tells us more about the worshiper (or classifier) than
138 For a similar critique of Easum, see Frank Burch Brown, Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian
Taste: Aesthetics in Religious Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 238-42.
139 Easum and Bandy, Growing Spiritual Redwoods, 74 and Easum, Worship in a Changing
Culture, 17.
140 Easum and Bandy, Growing Spiritual Redwoods, 75.
141 See Brown, Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste, 243.
- 92 -
the worship itself. Using categories based in experience or reaction is too highly subjective
since different people could have a completely different reaction to the same worship
service. Different theologies, cultural backgrounds, capacities for ritual activity, and
spiritualities among worshipers could result in vastly varying interpretations of the same
worship service. In that case what does spirited or inspirational worship mean? One
suspects that such terms in Easums and Bandys writings always means a kind of worship
that they like.
An Evangelical, Pastoral Scheme: The Taxonomy of Paul Basden
Paul Basden provides another recent taxonomy of North American worship142 Basden, a
Baptist pastor, creates his taxonomy for a different purpose and audience. Compiled to
provide to help evangelical churches understand to different approaches to worship that they
may follow, Basdens taxonomy is instructive in that it shows how a current American
evangelical might see the diversity of North American worship. As a comprehensive
taxonomy for North American worship, however, it is incomplete.
Basden constructs his taxonomy as a one-dimensional, horizontal spectrum using
popular, non-technical labels. The distinct categories assess different kinds of worship
styles, which Basden appears to use as a broad term for a way of worship. The elements
which he assesses to determine different styles of worship include the following: attitude,
mood, order of worship, target audience, congregational singing, special music, musical
instrumentation, amount of Scripture, offering, manner of preaching, manner of
invitation, and approach to ordinances/sacraments.143 He develops his five point
spectrum in order to go beyond simple traditional /non-traditional or
traditional/contemporary/blended categories often used today.144
With the goal of discerning distinct styles of worship, Basden identifies five main styles
placed along a spectrum where the left-hand side is the most traditional and the right, the
least.145 When charted, Basdens spectrum looks like this:
Liturgical Traditional Revivalist Praise & Worship Seeker
Basdens main concern is to describe the nature of each of these styles. Identification of
each category with a particular denomination, ethnic group, or historical figure is offered,
but is a secondary concern. When such are identified specifically, Basdens spectrum could
look like this:
Liturgical Traditional Revivalist Praise & Worship Seeker
Lutheran Reformed Zwingli Black worship Willow Creek
Anglican Separatist Quaker Pentecostal Saddleback
Puritan Wesleyan
142 Paul Basden, The Worship Maze: Finding a Style to Fit Your Church (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1999).

143 Ibid., 101-3.
144 Ibid., 36.
145 Ibid.
- 93 -
Basden details what he means by each category. Generally, liturgical worship has the
strongest historical roots and is worship whose goal is to bow before the holiness of God
in structured reverence.146 It is the worship of most mainline Protestant and Roman
Catholic churches. Traditional worship is a hybrid of its two neighbors, liturgical and
revivalist.147 From its liturgical roots comes a sense of dignity and reverence; from its
revivalist connection comes a concern with moving the hearts of the worshipers.
Revivalist worship derives from American frontier roots. It is characterized by
informality, exuberance, zeal and aggressive preaching, all aimed to convert sinners.148
Basden identifies praise and worship mainly with Pentecostal worship. It is music-
organized worship aimed at bringing believers into an intimate sense of Gods presence
through music.149 The seeker approach is a rehash of the revivalist goal, albeit in a toned
down format. Seeker worship attempts to present the gospel to unbelievers.150
Basdens taxonomy has some strengths. It focuses on congregational phenomenon and
thus offers itself as a possible taxonomy for assessing what is happening currently. It
recognizes diversity within denominations. It is concerned with Gods presence in worship,
which as I will argue, is an important way to distinguish among approaches to worship. And,
importantly, Basden attempts to be open-minded as he tries to provide a fair, attractive
description of each worship style.
Basdens taxonomy does have some flaws, however. Because he does not limit himself to
current expressions of worship, Basden at times makes historical overstatements. For
example, it is quite surprising to find the sixteenth century Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, the
seventeenth century Quaker founder George Fox, and the Anglican priest John Wesley, a
founder of the Methodist movement in the eighteenth century, grouped together as
examples of the revivalist category.151 Those preferring a history-based taxonomy would
do better with James Whites more historically accurate one described below.
A severe flaw occurs in the use of liturgical as a taxonomical category. Any such use
must be questioned on theological grounds. Basden, following popular evangelical usage,
seems to intend this term to mean a certain way of doing worship involving a high level of
ceremony, use of historically-grounded texts, and a certain reverential tone. Although this
might be a common occurrence among evangelicals, it is poor theology to limit liturgical
to one style of Christian worship because it implies that the rest of Christian worship is
not liturgical. All Christian worship, however, must be liturgical in a theological sense if
it is truly Christian. In a theological sense, liturgical does not refer to a certain style of
worshipingformal with much ceremonybut a churchs worship participating in the
ongoing ministry of Jesus Christ before God the Father (Hebrews 8: a-b). Liturgical refers
to worship as a work of the people, a public service. In worship it can refer to both Christs
work on humanitys behalf and the churchs participation as the body of Christ in the
146 Ibid., 54.

147 Ibid., 55.
148 Ibid., 66.
149 Ibid., 77.
150 Ibid., 89.
151 Ibid., 67.
- 94 -
ongoing ministry of Christ for all people. In this theological sense all Christian worship must
be liturgical to be truly Christian. Thus the theological question is not whether any certain
kind of Christian worship is liturgical or not but how it is liturgical. Liturgical should not
be used as a classifying term to distinguish a worship style.
Basdens spectrum literally breaks down at some points, too. Looking at whether the
different styles plan worship with Christians or non-Christians primarily in mind, their
placement on the spectrum does not indicate a styles approach. Thus revivalist (in the
center on the spectrum) and seeker (on the far right end) aim for non-Christians while
praise and worship, located between these two, is concerned with leading Christians into
worship. (Liturgical and traditional are, too.)
Basdens taxonomy is also limited in that it is not comprehensive enough. Basden is
Baptist and that perspective, naturally enough, seems to be the real point of reference. Many
of his examples of each kind of worship in the book are Baptist examples. Because his
intended audience seems to be evangelical churches trying to find their way through the
worship maze, he tends to underemphasize approaches to worship that are not viable
options for mainstream evangelicals.
Basdens taxonomy tends toward caricature at several points. For instance, because he
uses classification based on worshipers elicited, Basden can paint a picture that presumes all
Christian approaches to worship have as a primary purpose a desire to elicit responses from
the worshiperpossibly a projection of Basdens own experience. That is not necessarily the
case for all Protestant approaches to worship.
Likewise, even a strength in his taxonomy, such as assessing the manner of Gods
presence in worship, can lead to caricature. Basden spends quite a bit of time linking what he
sees as different dimensions of Gods presence to different types of worship. Thus
liturgical worship cultivates a sense of Gods transcendence but not immanence.152
Traditional worship, in comparison, yields both a sense of Gods transcendence and
immanence while praise and worship focuses on a sense of Gods immanence.153
While seeing how God is present in worship has potential for a solid taxonomyand will
be revisited belowBasdens use of this aspect of worship is too subjective and can lead to
inaccurate caricatures. It would not be too hard to find liturgical churches with active,
deep fellowship that would speak of a tremendous sense of Gods immanence during the
exchange of the peace of Christ or reception of the Eucharist. Similarly, one can imagine a
Pentecostal church bowed before a sense of Gods transcendence after a particularly moving
word of prophecy embedded within the time of music. Basdens taxonomy would benefit
from looking not at a subjective qualitative sense of Gods presence but at the ordinary
means by which the worshiping congregation senses Gods presence. In other words, not
whether the Presence is experienced as transcendent or immanent but whether the people
expect to find the Presence in their music, their preaching, or in their sacraments.
152 Basden, The Worship Maze, 42.

153 Ibid., 60, 85-6.
- 95 -
Finally, Basdens taxonomy suffers from his overstatements. He describes the purpose of
Praise and Worship, for example as guiding worshipers to offer a sacrifice of praisein a
spirit of joyful adoration. Surely, this is such a broad and basic enough statement that one
wonders who in Basdens taxonomy would not want to claim it.
A Thorough Historical Scheme: The Taxonomy of James White
Noted liturgical historian James White has created perhaps the most thorough Protestant
liturgical taxonomy. This thoughtful scheme reflects the breadth of Whites knowledge and
is the place to ground any serious study of Protestant liturgical classification. Whites
evenhanded scholarship shows as he continually developed it into its present, mature form
over nearly a fifteen-year period. White began intentionally publishing a comprehensive
taxonomy for Protestant worship in 1975. Several revisions followed until he published a
final form of the taxonomy in 1989.154 Whites goal is a comprehensive taxonomy to classify
the different traditions of Protestant worship from their origins to present expression.
The heart of Whites taxonomy is his identification of nine Protestant worship traditions:
Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Methodist, Puritan, Anabaptist, Quaker, Frontier, and
Pentecostal. White identifies these nine traditions based on key enduring characteristics for
each. White emphasizes this ethos-of-each-tradition approach rather than the older approach
in his discipline that emphasized relationship by liturgical texts. White chooses to emphasize
each traditions ethos rather than its liturgical texts because, as White himself points out,
some Protestants do not have liturgical texts, having rejected their use in worship as part of
their ethos.
From his first published taxonomy to its mature form in Protestant Worship: Traditions
in Transition (1989), White keeps fairly consistent his list of elements that determine the
distinctive ethos of the various Protestant liturgical traditions. These central elements that
distinguish one Protestant tradition from another include the use of service books or their
absence, the importance or unimportance of sacraments, tendencies to uniformity based on
codification or lack thereof, congregational autonomy or connectionalism, the varying roles
of music and the other arts, ceremonial or its absence, variety and predictability, and various
sociological factors.155 Upon these factors White builds his taxonomy, first identifying a
cluster of characteristics that constitute a distinctive ethos, then labeling that ethos as a
Protestant worship tradition, and finally describing how those characteristics define that
154 James Whites earliest attempt came in the mid-1970s: Traditions of Protestant Worship,
Worship 49, 5 (May, 1975): 272-281. This article was substantially reproduced in Christian Worship in
Transition (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), 61-75. Refinement continued in the 1980s: Introduction
to Christian Worship, 1st ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), 41-3; Creativity: The Free Church
Tradition, in Liturgy: a Creative Tradition, Concilium, vol. 162, ed. Mary Collins and David Power
(New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 47-52; The Classification of Protestant Traditions of Worship,
Studia Liturgica 17 (1987): 264-272. In 1989 a mature form of the taxonomy became the basis for a
whole book: Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1989), 21-4.
155 White, Protestant Worship, 22. Compare to White, Traditions of Protestant Worship, 272 for
the earlier version.
- 96 -
Protestant tradition. Thus the Lutheran tradition shows a basic conservatism, a love of
music, a concern for preaching, and a toleration of indifferent matters (for example, robes)
as long as they do not suggest works righteousness. The Methodist tradition is a hybrid
tradition mixing certain Anglican roots with a Free Church attitude. Added to this mix are
both a good dose of pragmatism and, at least originally, an interest in examples from the
early church. The Quaker tradition, in comparison, emphasizes direct access to the Holy
Spirit and a reliance upon the Spirit to move before any action is taken in worship. As such it
is a form of corporate mysticism as a classic Quaker approach abolishes all presupposed
outward forms of worship. Whites earlier works describe each tradition in an abbreviated
form. His 1989 book, Protestant Worship, gives a chapter-length examination to each.
Differences in essential character or ethos is how White distinguishes between the
various Protestant traditions. Having established a distinctive identify for each, White places
the nine traditions under three broad classifications: left-wing, central, and right-wing. While
acknowledging that these are terms pulled from the political arena, White does not mean
them in a literal political sense.156 Instead, White intends to show in these broad political
terms a traditions relative position to late medieval Western liturgical roots, one of his main
criteria for distinguishing among Protestant worship traditions. White labels two of the
Protestant traditions (Lutheran and Anglican) as right-wing, meaning that, with respect to
late Medieval liturgical forms, their worship practices have reflected a more restrained
revision. In contrast, the centrist groups (Reformed and Methodist) reflect a more remote
attachment to the ways of worship of the late Middle Ages. The left-wing groups
(Anabaptist, Quaker, Puritan, Frontier, and Pentecostal) show the least connection to
Medieval roots.157
In addition to these two bases for distinctiona traditions enduring characteristics of
ethos and its relative position to the medieval pastWhite also notes each traditions time of
origin to develop his full taxonomy. The result is a two-dimensional spectrum that visually
represents the relative position of each Protestant tradition to each other and to its Medieval
roots. The horizontal access in this spectrum represents the relative connection to medieval
roots with the right-wing traditions, as might be guessed, on the right hand side of the
spectrum and vice versa. The vertical access represents the passage of centuries. Thus
locating each tradition on this axis represents its point of origin in history. The older
Protestant traditions appear at the top of the vertical axis and the younger, toward the
bottom. This mature taxonomical chart first appeared in 1989 and is reproduced below.
156 White, Protestant Worship, 22.

157 One of the major changes in earlier forms of the taxonomy to the latest is the elimination of the
Free Church terminology to define certain Protestant traditions. Earlier forms of the taxonomy
speak of three different historic manifestations of a Free Church approach to worship. Later forms of
the taxonomy use other terms: Anabaptist, Puritan/Separatist, and Frontier.
- 97 -
Whites Chart of the Protestant Traditions of Worship158

Origins Left Wing Central Right Wing
16th century Anabaptist Reformed Anglican, Lutheran
17th century Quaker Puritan
18th century Methodist
19th century Frontier
20th century Pentecostal
A subsequent version included lines to show shifts and developments. In another

adaptation, White has also produced a version of the taxonomy that links the different
traditions to European regions when appropriate. 159
Whites taxonomy has both strengths and limitations. It is strongest when used for
describing the origins of historically distinct approaches. Whites tremendous grasp of
liturgical history is shown in the taxonomy. Not surprisingly, his taxonomybased on this
grasp of historyis a good tool for showing the nature of distinct approaches to Protestant
worship when they started. In addition, the characteristics he identifies for assessing the
traditions different ethos are very perceptive and remain useful.
The taxonomy is less useful for showing the actual types of Protestant worship now. 160
White himself hints at this limitation in his classification scheme when he notes that it is
easier to define the center of a tradition than its periphery.161 In addition, White recognizes
how cultural and ethnic differences can deeply affect the expression of a tradition in any
context. Moreover, White recognizes a degree of blurring among the traditions as certain
cultural shifts (for example, the Enlightenment) can cause similar fallout among the
traditions.162 Similarly, White recognizes that ecumenical sharing also causes the blurring of
lines between traditions.163
Failure to recognize these limitations could lead to a false picture of the current state of
Protestant worship in North America. If a reader failed to see the factors that lead to
blurring over time and now, it would be possible to overemphasize a distinction between,
for example, Methodist and Reformed worship. In actuality, due to a variety of factors, many
158 White, Protestant Worship, 23.

159 James White, Documents of Christian Worship: Descriptive and Interpretive Sources
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 7, 9.
160 See the similar critique in Keith Watkins, Protestant Worship: Many Traditions or One?
Worship 64, 4 (July 1990): 309. Another critique of whites taxonomy is given by Frank C. Senn in
Protestant Worship: Does It Exist? Worship 64, 4 (July 1990): 322-330. Both scholars argue, not
persuasively I believe, that Protestantism properly defined constitutes a single worship tradition.
161 White, Protestant Worship, 22. White, The Classification of Protestant Traditions of
Worship, 266. White also notes an awkwardness in his taxonomy in that certain groups (Moravians,
Shakers, Brethren) do not easily fit within his tradition labels. See White, Protestant Worship, 23.
162 White, The Classification of Protestant Traditions of Worship, 267.
163 Ibid., 272; White, Traditions of Protestant Worship, 282. White has primarily in mind the
sharing within the Liturgy Movement but the same point could be made about more popular
influences like certain mega-churches such as Willow Creek and Saddleback Community Churches.
- 98 -
of the traditions named by White can now represent a rather wide spectrum of worship
practices. Put more simply, can anyone really say what it means to worship according to the
Methodist or the Reformed tradition right now in North America? Churches belonging to a
tradition identified by Whiteeven to the same denomination within that traditioncan
vary widely in worship practices today even though they are just down the street from each
other in the same city. Whites own prophecy, spoken at the beginning of publishing his
taxonomy, seems to have come true: It is quite possible that the greatest differences will
soon be discernible within groups that previously would have been reckoned distinct
traditions.164 That would suggest that a different set of labels other than the ones suggested
by White, which tend to be historically based labels, would be helpful for describing the
actual current diversity of Protestant worship in North American.
Suggestions For A New Taxonomy
Where does that leave us? If we desire a taxonomy that is simple enough to distinguish
basic differences among Protestant churches yet broad enough to cover the full range of
current North American practices, whose taxonomy offers the most guidance? The popular
traditional/contemporary/blended taxonomy is hopelessly simplistic. Easums and Bandys
taxonomies are too polemical; they provide more information about the agenda of these two
men than they do about the true range of Christian liturgical practices. Basdens taxonomy
has some helpful points but is too narrow and, at times, inaccurate. James Whites taxonomy
is the most thorough, well-developed, and historically sound. It is strongest, however, as a
historical taxonomy for Protestant worship. Its categories are not as helpful in distinguishing
the variety of approaches to Christian worship at the present time.
All is not lost with these taxonomies. I believe it is possible to take the root information
behind Whites taxonomyhis notion of various liturgical ethosand combine it with some
insights from Robert Webber in order to achieve the goal of a simple, accurate, yet broad set
of classifying terms for Christian worship in North America today.165 First, the insights of
Webber.
In speaking about the planning of worship, Robert Webber often makes a distinction
between content, structure, and style in worship.166 This framework is itself a helpful step in
that it takes us beyond just looking at stylistic issues, which is where some popular
taxonomies stop. In fact, I suggest that it is the two other elements (content and structure)
that offer the most help areas for developing categories to classify worship. This takes
Webbers terms beyond what he himself does with them. For Webber, who tends to
advocate a certain approach to worship in his publications, the content and structure of
worship should remain fairly steady. The content and structure he suggests is derived from
the Bible and based on deep historical norms.167 The fact that he must advocate certain
164 White, Traditions of Protestant Worship, 282.

165 To a lesser degree Basdens analysis of the inner character of different liturgical approaches is
also helpful.
166 Robert Webber, Planning Blended Worship, 20. See also Robert Webber, Worship Old & New,
Rev. Ed. (Zondervan, 1994); 149-51 and Renew Your Worship, 32.
167 See, for example, Webber, Worship Old and New, 149-50.
- 99 -
classic content and structure in worship highlights the fact, I believe, that it is precisely here
on these crucial matters that diversity abounds in Christian worship.
And so, taking Whites notion that different liturgical approaches can be defined by ethos
differences and Webbers distinctions between content and structure, I suggest two initial
ways for classifying worship today. One deals with the question of content. Specifically, what
is the content of a churchs worship in terms of whose story is told. No one service or
Sunday is likely to disclose fully how to classify a congregation. This must be assessed over a
longer period of time, evaluating the worship from week to week. In terms of classifying by
content, I suggest two categories: personal-story churches and cosmic-story churches. There
are churches whose worship over time is most focused on the personal stories of the
worshipers and how God interacts with their stories. In contrast there are churches whose
worship over time unfolds a more cosmic remembrance of the grand sweep of Gods saving
activity. The goal here will be to show how worshipers have a share in salvation history.
Personal-story churches and cosmic-story churches can be distinguished by how their
worship answers this question: what needs to be remembered corporately in worship? The
different answers may not be readily identifiable in a single element in a single congregation.
Rather, over time, one must assess how a church selects the Scripture it will read, what the
normal purpose of the sermon is, the regular content of prayers and music, the nature of any
dramatic presentations, and what special holidays are observed. Evaluate, for example, the
content of a churchs worship music. Over time, are the main metaphors and content
relational, emphasizing our relationship to a wonderful God? Are there few references to a
historical man Jesus or to biblical stories of God acting within human history? In
comparison, is the content mainly historical, using this remembrance to make statements
about a saving God? One could look at even how the congregation primarily explains the
meaning of baptism and the Lords Supper. Are these about each ones personal experience
of a gracious God who has given us life abundant or are they signs by which, to use the
language of the newest United Methodist baptismal service, we are incorporated into Gods
mighty acts of salvation?168
A few examples may clarify the difference in personal-story and cosmic-story churches.
An example of the former is a church that plans its worship on themes of particular interest
to the worshipers. This approach usually creates personal-story based worship, particularly if
the church is intentional about identifying its participants felt needs. Ginghamsburg
United Methodist Church in Ohio represents this approach. Worship planning begins with
naming a felt need as perceived in the churchs target audience. From that worship planners
develop a theme and a metaphor that serves as the root visual image for the service.
Everything else is selected on that basis.169 In contrast, the worship of a Methodist church
strictly following the Revised Common Lectionary operates on a much different basis. If all
the musical texts, prayers, readings, and sermon content were connected to the lectionary
texts, the result would be a telling of a very different story than Ginghamburgs.
168 The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House,
1992), 87.
169Kim Miller et al., Handbook for Multi-Sensory Worship (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 9.
- 100 -
Another way for classifying worship deals with different structures for worship services.
When Webber discusses the structure, he usually is advocating a four-fold order rooted in
the services of the early church.170 I do not intend such a narrow focus here in using
different structures as a key to classifying different kinds of worship. I intend structure in a
broader sense to designate the organizing principle in a congregations worship. Put more
specifically, where is the most time and energy spent within a service and what gets the most
prominent space and most expensive furnishings and equipment? When these questions are
answered I believe that most North American worship services can fall into one of three
categories: music-organized, Word/preaching-organized, or Sacrament-organized (meaning
the Lords Supper). In other words, one of these usually serves as the dominant aspect of
worship around which other things orbit.
I also suggest that these three categoriesmusic, Word/preaching, and Sacramentare
not just the main organizing principles in what gets the most time, energy, and dominant
position in the order of worship. These three, I believe, also serve as the primary sacramental
principles at work in different approaches to North American worship today. In other
words, one of these three is usually the normal means by which a congregation assesses
Gods presence in worship or believes that God is made present in worship. This assessment
or belief does not have to be at the level of formal theology. It can be at the level of popular
piety. The point is the same. A congregation will devote time, energy, attention, and money
to the worship activity where the people find God present.
I am not the first to suggest this three-fold approach to different sacramental principles.
Reformed liturgical scholar John Witvliet has suggested a similar thing:
Worshipers in nearly every Christian tradition experience some of what
happens in worship as divine encounter. Differences in Christian worship
arise not so much whether or not God is understood to be present, but
rather in what sense. Those who mock supposedly simplistic theories of
sacramental realism at the Lords Supper wind up preserving sacramental
language for preaching or for music. Speaking only somewhat
simplistically: the Roman Catholics reserve their sacramental language for
the Eucharist, Presbyterians reserve theirs for preaching, and the
charismatics save theirs for music. In a recent pastors conference, one
evangelical pastor solicited applications for a music director/worship
leader position by calling for someone who could make God present
through music. No medieval sacramental theologian could have said it
more strongly. 171
I suggest that Witvliets description of different approaches to sacramentality is accurate
enough that it can form the basis for a new kind of liturgical taxonomy, although Witvliet
170For an example, see Webber, Signs of Wonder, 37.

171 John D. Witvliet, At Play in the House of the Lord: Why Worship Matters, Books & Culture
4, 6 (November/December 1998), 23. For a popular description of the same thing, against which
Robert Webber reacted negatively, see Robert Webber, Reducing God to Music? Leadership (Spring
1999): 35.
- 101 -
himself does not take it that far. Everyone speaks of encounter with Gods presence in
worship. The difference, which can offer categories for a liturgical taxonomy, is how and
where they expect to have that encounter in worship.172
Some may be surprised by attaching a notion of Gods presence to music itself although
they understanding doing so to the Word of God or the Lords Supper. Such a connection
to music, however, is quite prevalent in some current approaches to worship. It is the basic
premise, for example, in any praise and worship service based upon a typology of the Old
Testament temple. In that case, music is the vehicle which moves worshipers into the holy
of holies of Gods presence.173 One book based on this approach states the matter bluntly in
its title: Gods Presence Through Music.174 Even the very recent sociological study from the
Hartford Institute for Religion Research suggests a connection between a stronger sense of
the immediacy of the Holy Spirit and those churches using newer musical styles and
electronic instrumentation.175 These are often the churches having a central role for
extended music in their services.
The categories in this taxonomy can be overlaid on Whites chart in order to update it.
One could place the music-organized, Word/preaching-organized, and Sacrament-organized
categories on top of his chart. The result would show tendencies in North American
worship today. Traditions on the right-hand side of the chart tend to have worship which is
Sacrament-organized. Centrist traditions worship tend to be Word/preaching-organized.
Left-hand traditions is where one tends to find music-organized services and the emphasis
on music-as-sacrament.
Such a scheme is too simple, however, in two respects. For a more accurate picture, this
kind of taxonomy must take into account the diversity whether within denominations or
Whites traditions. Yet even then this classification scheme can be helpful. For one thing, I
suggest that churches at either end of an expanded version of Whites chart are more likely
to be in line with the tendency for that end of the sacramental-principle spectrum. Thus
Pentecostal churches currently are more likely to have music-organized services but not
exclusively so. Lutheran and Anglican churches, in contrast, are more likely to have
Sacrament-organized services but not exclusively so. This sacramental-principle spectrum
can suggest what is likely to be the second most likely kind of service. In other words, a
Pentecostal church is more likely to have a Word/preaching-organized service than it is a
Sacrament-organized one. Similarly, one is more likely to find a Word/preaching-organized
service in a Lutheran or Anglican setting than a music-organized one. An example would be
172 Could the internal fights many congregations have over worship style actually be disputes about
different approaches to liturgical sacramentality, not about the styles themselves?

173John D. Witvliet, The Blessing and Bane of the North American Mega-Church, Jahrbuch fr
Liturgik und Hymnologie (1998): 201-2. Witvliet provides an extensive bibliography in note 15 of the
same article.
174 Ruth Ann Ashton, Gods Presence Through Music (South Bend, IN: Lesea Publishing Co.,
1993).
175 Carl S. Dudley and David A. Roozen, Faith Communities Today: A Report on Religion in the
United States Today (Hartford, CT: Hartford Institute for Religion Research at Hartford Seminary,
March 2001), 12 July 2001 <http://fact.hartsem.edu/Final%20FACTrpt.pdf>, p. 40.
- 102 -
an Episcopal church I once attended whose services had no music at all. For Whites centrist
traditions, particularly Methodist and Reformed, this sacramental-principle spectrum
suggests the true diversityand fightswhich now takes place within these traditions.
Within these centrist traditions some forces are pulling churches toward a music-
sacramentality while some pull toward a sacramentality finding Gods presence most acutely
in the Lords Supper. Thus it is currently possible to find services within these centrist
traditions anyplace within the spectrum of sacramentalities.
In addition, to show the true diversity within Christianity, this scheme must take into
account combinations of sacramental principles.176 In other words, there are churches whose
services balance a music-organized and Word-organized sacramentalities and churches
whose services balance a Word-organized and Sacrament-organized sacramentalities. Less
likely are churches who combine music-organized and Sacrament-organized sacramentality.
Less likely, too, are churches who combine all three. These combinations suggest a
difference meaning for the term blended worship. Rather than referring to a blending of
music or even worship style, perhaps it is a term better used to describe congregations which
sense Gods presence in worship in a variety of means.
Finally, I would like to suggest another set of classifying labels for North American
worship today that are rooted in Whites assessment of different ethos but are not connected
to Webbers. I believe that one of the aspects White identifies as distinguishing different
ethos still serves as a clear and crucial element in classifying worship today. The particular
element in question is whether a church in its liturgical planning operates as an independent
congregation or starts with the assumption that it will use resources common to its tradition
or denomination.177 The first approach I call congregational and the second
connectional. (Non-Methodists must excuse my selecting a term with long roots in my
Methodist heritage for the second term.) Of course, there is a third option: churches that are
officially connectional but actually operate as autonomous congregations. (I could point to
my own my Methodist church.)
This classification is a useful one for understanding how it is that single congregations are
likely to make worship decisions. I believe, for example, that the literature on liturgical
inculturation can be separated along this congregational/connectional divide. There is one
set of writings on how we should adapt worship to fit different cultures that presumes a
connectional method. In this perspective, the goal is to take a common resource, whether
created by the denomination or derived from history, and then adapt is to different cultural
groups. Most of the literature from Anglican, and Lutheran sources fits this approach. In
contrast, literature on culturally-adapted worship from Church Growth experts, including
Easum and Bandy, emphasize the absolute autonomy of local congregations in creating new
worship forms.
176 To be truly accurate two other possibilities for different kinds of sacramentality must be
included: fellowship-organized and aesthetics-organized. In the former the emphasis is placed on the
community by itself as the locus of Gods presence. This is how classic Quaker worship might be
identified. In aesthetics-organized sacramentality, the worship environment itself is how the worshipers
sense Gods presence.
177 White, Traditions in Transition, 22.
- 103 -
This classification scheme can line up generally with Whites chart, too. Churches on the
left-hand side of his chart will tend to have a congregational liturgical method whereas
churches on the right will have a connectional one. As before, the centrist traditions will be
split. Individual denominations there might officially be connectional but truly act
congregationally.
Conclusion
And so, back to the original question. How would you classify your churchs worship?
Using these new classifying terms I have suggested, does it usually tell a personal-story or a
cosmic-story? How do people organize the worship service and assess Gods presence? Is
your service music-organized, Word-organized, or Sacrament-organized? How do people
expect to encounter God in worship? Is it in the music, in the preaching, or in the Lords
Supper? And, finally, was your churchs worship planned using a method that is
congregational or connectional in its approach?
Given the variety of liturgical taxonomies now in use, it is a daunting task to suggest
another scheme. Hopefully, the categories given in this new taxonomy can provide some real
insight about the substance and diversity of North American worship today.
- 104 -
TWIN PARABLES OF STEWARDSHIP IN LUKE 16

J. Lyle Story1
Luke 16 reveals vital concern for responsible stewardship. Two parables (16:1-8, 19-31)
are linked with other paragraphs in Lukes Travel-Narrative, which introduce a rich
person:
The Parable of the Rich Fool (12:16-21)the land of a rich man brought forth
plentifully. . . (12:16)
The Parable of the Dishonest Manager (16:1-9)there was a rich man who had a
steward. . . (16:1)
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19)Now there was a rich man. . .
(16:19)
The Rich Ruler (18:18-39)But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very
rich. (18:23)
Zacchaeus (19:1-10)he was a chief tax-collector, and rich.
In each instance, wealth poses a problem, expressed in parable or narrative form. The
rich fool lived life in a self-sufficient manner without taking God seriously. The desire for
wealth led the dishonest manager into his original squandering, compounded by his
dishonest treatment of the debtors. The rich man, who lived in luxury, had no regard for the
poverty-stricken Lazarus who daily lay in misery at his gateway. The value of the rich rulers
possessions was greater than his desire to follow Jesus. Zacchaeus wealth is introduced prior
to his encounter with Jesus, but his salvation (19:9-10) issues in his subsequent honest
self-reckoning and willingness to reverse any prior dishonesty.
Responsible Stewardship in Luke 16
The two parables in Luke 16 need to be understood together. Both story-parables begin
with the words, There was a certain rich man and relate to the explicit command of Jesus
in the Sermon on the Mount to, lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven (Matt. 6:20).
That command is illustrated positively by the manager (Lk. 16:1-8) and Jesus application of
the parable (vss. 9-13), negatively by the rich man (Dives) in 16:19-31, who laid up for
himself treasures on earth (Matt. 6:19). Both parables call for responsible stewardship in
the present with a view to an impending future. Moreover, Jesus answer to avaricious
opponents (16:14-18) serves as the seam which holds together the overall message of the
two parables.
In the first parable, the dishonest manager prepared, albeit dishonestly, for his future life
by his actions toward those who were in debt to his master. By generously reducing the debt
1 J. Lyle Story, PhD, is Professor of Biblical Languages and New Testament in the School of
Divinity at Regent University and coauthor of Greek to Me (Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2002), as
well as The Greek to Me Multimedia Tutorial (CD-ROM) and other teaching aids.
- 105 -
of each one, he insures a reception into the homes of his masters debtors after his official
discharge. The debtors would have a kindly feeling toward him because of the generosity he
had shown to them. He laid up treasure for his future life. He acted quickly (v. 6) and
shrewdly (v. 8) and from his master he received commendation for his sagacity. In the first
parable, there is a crassness and selfishness about the managers behavior as he curries the
favor (with his masters money!) of the debtors and thereby provides for his own future well-
being.
As for the second parable, Dives laid up treasures on earth (cf. Matt. 6:19). Since he
knew Lazarus by name (Luke 16:24) and since Lazarus was lying facing his gateway (16:20),
in keeping with the graphic portrayal, we surmise that he had passed by Lazarus more than
once. Thus, he could not help but sense something of Lazarus miserable and helpless
condition. Whether Dives gave the order that some table scraps be taken to Lazarus is not
clear. Nor is it clear if, before the scraps arrived, the dogs devoured them as they proceeded
to lick the open sores of the leprous one. What is abundantly clear, however, is that Dives
lived in luxury and extravagance as though Lazarus had no real claim upon his time and
resources and, therefore, the beggar was no object of his concern.
Manifestly, there is a stark inhumanity ingrained in Dives nature. In his splendid clothing
and with his delectable banquets (16:19), Dives lived as one whose treasure is on earth and
the enjoyment thereof consumed all of his time and energy for as long as he lived in this
world. He gave no thought to the future and, accordingly, laid up no treasure for the next
world. There is a selfishness and aloofness about Dives, an ability to close his heart
completely to one in dire need and an inability to see any life beyond the present. Torment
alone was his new experience on the other side. Lazarus was also there on the other side
not to welcome him as the debtors would be ready to welcome the dishonest manager
(they will welcome in 16:9). There is no expression of regret by Dives for his blatant
neglect of Lazarus need while Lazarus was languishing at his gateway. He simply wants
Lazarus to administer momentary relief in his painful need and to minister to the need of his
five brothers still living in the world.
Unitedly, the parables point the readership to a life on earth of responsible stewardship
with material possessions andpreeminentlyto stewardship on behalf of fellow humans
who are in desperate need of tender and compassionate care.
The Parable of the Dishonest Manager: Luke 16:1-13
Introduction
There is a change in audience from the Pharisees and Scribes (15:1-2) to the disciples
(16:1) and then, to the Pharisees, characterized as lovers of money who hear these
things (16:14). In essence, the parable is a summons to resolute action in crisisto deal
with the crisis wisely and to stake all on the future. Specifically, there is a particular directive
to use money in a proper way in the present age, so as to ensure a Well done in the final
age. While wealth endangers people often leading them astray, disciples should make use of
(be friends with) the mammon of unrighteousness that others might receive them into
eternal dwellings.
- 106 -
Interpretation
Introduction to the parable (v. 1a). The immediate audience of the parable is the
disciples, a different audience than the religious critics of 15:1.
Parable: problem of the dishonest manager (vss. 1b-2). The reader is introduced to two
actors, the rich man and the manager, seen through a clear chain of events:
Report about the Reckoning time for the Loss of the managers
manager manager job
1 There was a rich man 2 So he summoned him because you cannot be my
who had a manager, and said to him, What is manager any longer.
and charges were this that I hear about you?
brought to him that Give me an accounting of
this man was your management.
squandering his
property.
The manager is a house steward in a privileged position, manages his masters property
and estate,2 possibly as a treasurer.3 Usually born as a slave,4 the manager possessed great
economic freedom and responsibility with which he could realize personal benefit through
loans with extravagant interest.5
A second person brings charges6 to the rich man about the stewards squandering of the
masters property, a report which the master apparently believes. This charge7 leads to an
official summons of the manager for a reckoning. The rich man demands that the steward
produce proof that would refute the accusation. The rich mans anger is expressed in two
crisp expressions: What is this that I hear about you? and Give me an accounting8 of
your management. The result of the reckoning is clearit will lead to the managers loss of
his job, because you cannot be my manager any longer.
2 BAGD, p. 562. The opposite portrait of a faithful (pi/stoj) or wise (fro/nimoj) manager is
portrayed elsewhere in the NT: Luke 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and prudent
manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the
proper time? 1 Cor. 4:2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
3 MM 1977, 442-43.
4 We might expect that the man is not a slave, but an employeehe is not afraid of being
punished. See Wilhelm Michaelis, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1956), pp. 14-15.
5 Some interpreters have tried to justify the integrity of the manager by pointing to the command
against usury in the OT (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:36; Deut. 15:8; 23:19). Simon J. Kistemaker, The Parables
of Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), p. 228ff. However, the text of the parable does not
lead us in this direction.
6 diaba/llwto bring charges with hostile intent, either falsely and slanderously. BAGD, p.
180.
7 A true charge in the light of the property which has been squandered.
8 The term lo/goj, here means computation, reckoning, account, and is used with the verb
a)podi/dwmito mean give account, make a reckoning. BAGD, p. 479.
- 107 -
Envisioned solutions to the managers problem (vss. 3-4). The manager engages in a
monologue, What shall I do?9 In view of his ability to speak and act before the final
reckoning, there is a period of grace. At the same time, the outcome of the reckoning is clear
to him. Even though there is some leeway, his actions are governed by a sense of urgency (v.
6).10 His pink slip is a realityhe is going to lose his job:
What will I do?
now that my master is taking the position away from me?
At this point he is aware of a looming crisis, but before the ax falls, the manager thinks
with prudence and self-interest and plans a further sly use of his masters financial resources.
The verb, is taking the position away signifies the process of dismissal, which will not be
completed until the steward has had time to set down his accounts.11
The next part of his monologue is concerned with two possible ways to make a living.
Each possibility is raised, and then dismissed as impractical for him:
I am not strong enough to dig,
and
I am too ashamed to beg.
He will not easily be able to find another posh job as a managerhis references will not
check out. Due to his sedentary job, he has not acquired the strength to dig12 and he is too
ashamed to beg. At least the rogue is honest about his desire for a life of ease. It is clear that
there is no future for him unless he does something radical.
After the two possibilities are raised and dismissed, a new thought strikes13 the manager:
4 I know [it just now hit me] what to do,
that, when I am put out of the stewardship,
they may receive me into their houses.
He faces a real crisis in terms of future employment and survival. But he has a planan
idea that will provide for his physical needsat least for a period of time while he looks for
9 ti/ poih/sw, a deliberative subjunctive.

10 See v. 6, Take your bill, sit down quickly,
11 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1979), p. 618.
12 The vocation had become proverbial for strenuous activity, BAGD, p. 761, Digging is the
hardest kind of work the uneducated man must engage in.

13 Moule notes that an instantaneous action is over before it can be commented on, and that a
Greek punctiliar has to be translated on occasion by an English simple present, so the meaning is I
know what I will do, more exactly, I found out (a moment ago) what I will do. C.F.D. Moule, An
Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), pp. 7, 11. A. T. Robertson,
p. 893.
- 108 -
employment. The subject of the verb, they may receive anticipates his masters debtors.14
The readers are not told whether he was welcomed after his dismissal.
But it is ironical that the manager, about to lose his job because of his incompetence (low
profits for the master), plots a course of further planned incompetence, by means of the
very reason (low profits) that had created it in the first place.15
Actual solution of the managers problem (vss. 5-7). The plan (v. 4) is now made clear
through a brief description of the managers actions. The summoning of the debtors and
their reckoning presuppose that some time elapses between the rich mans summons of the
manager and the final reckoning. While the general invitation to the debtors may have been
more extensive (one by one), attention is devoted to two debtors only and the reduction of
their debts:
Debtor 1 Debtor 2
he asked the first, 7 Then he asked another,
Original DebtHow much do you Original DebtAnd how much do you
owe my master? 6 He answered, A owe? He replied, A hundred containers
hundred jugs of olive oil.16 of wheat.17
New DebtHe said to him, Take New DebtHe said to him, Take your bill
your bill, sit down quickly, and make it and make it eighty.
fifty.
Thus we see an internally connected movement from threatening crisis, through
decisive response, to an improved situation. The image of man is that of a being who is
capable of recognizing that he is in a crisis and of laying hold on the situation in such a way
as to overcome the threat.18 He believes that his new debtor-friends will be honor bound
14 Extortion squeeze is the key-word all over the East . . . If the tenants wanted to keep alive and
prevent their families from starving, nothing was left but to accept the conditions and shoulder the
extravagant extortion. Therefore, when asked how much they owed their master, they sullenly quoted
the amount which by force of circumstances they had written down on their bonds...These bonds were
the dreaded instruments of oppression. Great must have been their surprise, when, as the parable goes,
the steward invited his tenants to write out new documents with a substantially lesser amount to pay.
Paul Gchter, The Parable of the Dishonest Steward, CBQ, vol. 12 (1950), pp. 127-129.
15 John Dominic Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, (New York: Harper &
Row, 1973), p. 110.

16 The amount is at least 900 gal. of olive oil., which is roughly the yield of 146 olive-trees. The size
of the measure (ba/toj) is close to 8.6 gallons. Marshall, p. 618. The reduction of 50% is about 450
gallonsor an equivalent to 500 denarii. Jeremias, p. 619.
17 The debt is the rough equivalent of 1100 bushels of wheat, the yield of at least 100 acres of
wheat. The term container/measure (ko/roj) is a dry measure and was sold for ca. 25-30 denarii per
cor, giving a total price of 2500 denarii. The reduction of 20% is roughly equivalent to 500 denarii.
18 Dan Otto Via, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension, (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967), p. 158.
- 109 -
to welcome their newfound benefactor into their homes when he is dismissed from his
managerial position. Through his shrewdness he has provided for his well-being at his
masters expense.
Tribute to the manager by his master (v. 8a). The dishonest manager is commended, not
condemned. The crisis that occurred through dishonesty is overcome by more questionable
behavior.19 Substantiation for the commendation is given in the clause introduced by a
conjunction because he had acted shrewdly.
The idea of undivided service to a master is carried over from the parable and sayings.
Matt. 6:24 and Lk. 16:13 presuppose the possibility of a slave having two owners with equal
shares to him and therefore with equal claims to his services . . . Jesus is attacking the man
who suffers from the illusion that he can do what is implied by the infinitive to serve
without concentrating all his powers on rendering service in the sense of an exclusive
commitment and obligation.20 The saying is both a warning against unfaithfulness in
Christian commitment and a warning against enslavement by wealth.
The SeamThe Teaching Paragraph (16:14-18)
The theme of stewardship advances into the interchange between Jesus and his
opponents, the Pharisees, characterized as lovers of money, who sneered (v. 14, to
turn up the nose to someone)21 at Jesus for his teaching on responsible stewardship.
Jesus enjoined his disciples to make friends for themselves by using the worlds medium
of exchange discreetly, to build a solid and eternal future, where they will be welcomed
(16:9) into eternal tents.22 Their wealth is not to be lord, but to be placed on the altar
of service of the one Lord (Jesus) through its use in the lives of others, thereby
producing an eternal reward. But his opponents have sold out to the love of money,
i.e., avarice, and look only to what money can provide in the present age. Jesus knows
that their possession of wealth easily becomes lord in their lives. He had just
instructed his disciples that wrong attitudes towards wealth will thereby make ineffective
any service that is rendered to the Lord Jesus (16:13). His opponents hostility and
sarcasm reveals the truth of Jesus prior statement that the love of wealth will issue in
hatred for God (v. 13), amply expressed in their contemptuous23 response to Him as the
revealer of God. Their retort reveals that their master to whom they give devotion, is
wealth of a temporal sortwith no eternal reward in view. Jesus attacks the illusion that
one can give exclusive devotion to two masters. The following parable demonstrates
how wealth exercises such complete mastery over Dives.
19 Ibid., 158.
20 Rengstorf, dou=loj, TDNT, v. II, pp. 270-271.
21 The verb e0kmukthri/zw means lit. to turn up the nose to someone. BAGD, p. 242.
22 The word tents skhnai/v (v. 9) may suggest the patriarchal history of Abraham when at the
door of his tent (skhnhv in the LXX of Gen. 18:1), he welcomed the disguised angelic messengers (cf.
Lk. 16:22Lazarus received into Abrahams bosom).
23 The verb katafrone/w, look down upon, despise, scorn, treat with contempt, BAGD, p. 421
is well expressed by their sneering response.
- 110 -
The hostile interchange between Jesus and his opponents also reveals the related issue of
pride and prepares for the second parable. That is to say, the love of money and pride
fit hand in glove. Through his words, You are those who justify yourselves before
men (v. 15), Jesus exposes how his opponents think that temporal wealth is a sign of
special favor and self-importance.24 The same two issues (love of money and pride) lie
at the root of Dives extravagant lifestyle.
Stewardship also means to recognize the one to whom Christians belongthe true Lord.
The thoughts, intents and priorities that govern behavior are known by Him, God
knows your hearts (v. 15). What is treasured by people may be an abomination to God.
Honorable stewardship is also related to the law and the prophets and the fruition and
fulfillment of both in the new economy of the Kingdom of God. The strength of the
claim, everyone is striving to enter [the Kingdom of God]16:16, may rest on the
affirmation in the larger context (15:1all the tax-collectors and sinners). The
fulfillment of each part of the law is assured (16:17), finding fruition in the good news
of the Kingdom of God to which everyone is urgently invited,25 but it is accompanied
by the higher law of Jesus (16:18). The reference to the law and the prophets
anticipates the same authoritative claim of the OT that appears in the following Parable
of Dives and Lazarus (vss. 30-31). The aggressive response of all who are urgently
invited into the Kingdom of God, witnessed by the law and the prophets, is countered
by the insensitivity of the six brothers to the ongoing witness of Moses and the
prophets. Either the divorce-remarriage text is a dislocated text or it provides one
specific example of commitment to the Laws ongoing validity.
Application
The parable teaches one central truth. It is not an elaborate allegory in which each
person, attitude, word and action represents a hidden code. Nor does the parable provide an
exemplary or normative pattern as found, for example, in the Parable of the Good
Samaritan. The major thrust of the parable lies in the praise of the managers shrewd use of
money in the face of an impending crisis.26 Thus, the manager develops a plan, knowing that
soon he would be destitute and friendless. He uses his power with money to make some
friends and collect some favors, presuming that those favors could be cashed in when his
dismissal took effect. The adjective, shrewd, implies keen, astute, artful action and
innovation, which is expressed in creative strategizing; it may well include the energetic
planning with respect to ones physical resources. The parable speaks of intensity, creativity,
innovation, and limitless commitmentand by virtue of its broader literary context, it
certainly speaks of the wise and prudent use of finances.
24 Jesus says that this human pride is an abomination, i.e., idolatry in Gods sight. See T. W.
Manson, The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 587.

25 The translation invited urgently, understands bia/zetai as passive. The lexicon, BAGD, p.
140b, cites its passive use in the LXX of Gen. 33:11 and Judg. 13:14the genteel constraint imposed
on a reluctant guest.
26 This approach combines the two main lines of interpretation. See Craig Blomberg, Interpreting
the Parables, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1990), p. 246.
- 111 -
The words more than in v. 8 are especially important. Since the people of this age are
resourceful and creative with respect to money, then how much more should the people of
God, who belong to the Lord Jesus, be committed and resourceful, including in their
financial dealings? Jesus asks the pointed question, Why is it that the worldly people plan,
manipulate and strategize with respect to money, yet you hardly pay attention to the crisis
that you are inand fail to show a plan or purpose, and act creatively with your life and
resources? Jesus admires a clear-sighted shrewdness which senses a crisis and effectively
deals with it. The manager was about to lose his job, the books were about to be opened up,
and the verdict was clearguilty. Jesus desires that his people come to grips with their crisis.
Where will people spend eternity? How faithful are they with respect to the wise and prudent
use of our physical resources?
Although Jesus is not opposed to money, he is aware of its power to displace God and his
claim upon human life. That is why He insists that money is to be used as a utility in making
friends with God and others.
When a client goes to a bank for a loan to finance a car, make some home
improvements, even purchase a new home, the loan officer will a perform a search in terms
of her background. He will want to know how faithful she has been in terms of previous
loans. Has she been regular with car payments over a three year period? He will want to
know if she is a good risk and if there will be a return on the banks investment. Jesus puts it
bluntly that if you have not been faithful in the use of what is anothers, who will give you
what is your own? Jesus wishes to project his people into a position wherein they can see
Gods oversight over their lives with his resources of spiritual and material blessings. He
wills that his people become adequately prepared for greater blessings and responsibilities to
be used for Gods glory.
In the 21st Century, the need for social justice reflects itself in the high proportion of
people living in poverty in the U.S. and the broader global community that is rich and
prosperous. Although the poor in America live better than the global poor, manifestations of
abject poverty call Christian commitment into question of the need to help the poor in our
midst (both locally and globally). The existence of widespread, abject poverty in the worlds
poorest nations must also be met with practical help to relieve suffering and to empower the
poor to help themselves.
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: Luke16:19-31
Introduction
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is the only parable that contains a proper
name, Lazarus; the traditional name Dives is the Latin word meaning rich. There is no
moral or religious component to the story of Dives and Lazarusat least in the earthly
scene. 27
27 Mention should be made of an older form of the story in the Palestinian Talmud (Hagigah, II,
77d). T.W. Manson, H.D.A. Major, C.J. Wright, The Mission and Message of Jesus (New York: E.P.
Dutton and Co., Inc., 1938), p. 589. See also Ruth Rabbah 3:3 and Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:15:1. Harvey
- 112 -
The parable is a story of contrast. It begins with the contrast between rich and poor, fine
linen and skin ulcers, sumptuous feasting and longing for scraps. The story continues with
contrasts between earthly and heavenly spheres, between torment and bliss. The conclusion
holds still a final contrast. The hope of Dives that his brothers will repent if Lazarus goes to
them from the dead appears in contrast to the stark words of Abraham, they [your
brothers] will not even be persuaded [i.e., repent] if someone should rise from the dead
(16:31).
With its eye on the future, the parable warns people about the perils of wealth, self-
satisfaction, skepticism and unbelief, blind to divine revelation which so easily controls the
rich. They must know that a future reckoning is yet to be faced, issuing in bliss or torment.
Great surprises lie in store for both the rich and the poor.
The second parable clearly contrasts with the Parable of the Dishonest Manager in that
Dives laid up treasure on earth (Matt. 6:10) with no provision for the future to be
welcomed by others into eternal tents (16:4, 9). The proud, greedy and sneering Pharisees
(vss. 14ff.) are depicted in the parable by Dives, a rich man who has no name. He stored up
treasures on earth which remainon earth. Similarly, the authoritative witness of the law
and prophets (Lk. 16:16-18) fails to convince Dives or his five brothers (vss. 29-31).
Interpretation
Act I: Earthly
Earthly condition of the rich man (v. 19). The parable briefly summarizes the earthly
stations of the rich man (v. 19) and Lazarus (vss. 20-21), and brings the men together in their
earthly lives, i.e., Lazarus, a poor beggar lies at the gate of the rich mans house.
The parable begins with brief summary statements of the earthly condition of the rich
man told in three crisp clauses: 1) he was rich; 2) he would dress in purple and fine linen; 3)
he would live in luxury every day.28
The first statement affirms the wealth of the man;29 he does not need to work for a
living. The second statement narrates his usual30 clothing, purple and fine linen, clothing for
prominent people, arrayed in a costly mantle of purple wool with underwear of fine
K. McArthur & Robert M. Johnson, They Also Taught in Parables, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1990), p. 195. The Egyptian demotic literature offers a story in which we clearly see
a reversal in the next life, e.g., Setne Khamwas and Si-Osire (Setne II) Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient
Egyptian Literature, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 139. Meyer says, The reason
why Lk. 16:22f. had this influence in Egypt is coolness. Fresh water is available for Lazarus, v. 24. The
rich man, however, languishes in the heat of Hades. Rudolf Meyer, ko/lpoj, TDNT, vol. III, p.
826.
28 The verbal forms are customary, depicting what he habitually did, strengthened by the
expression, daily (kaq h(me/ran).

29 BAGD, p. 679
30 Use of the customary imperfect, would dress himself with (e)nedidu/sketo)
- 113 -
Egyptian linen.31 The last clause notes his luxurious living every day, i.e., he fared
sumptuously every day,32 which is linked to the participle being glad, enjoying oneself,
rejoicing, and is used elsewhere in Luke to refer to the physical satisfaction of eating. His
feasts were not reserved for special occasions, but were enjoyed on a daily basis. The verb
be glad, enjoy oneself is used of the rich fool in 12:19, eat drink, be merry, in the
celebration of the fathers household upon the return of the lost son, let us make merry
(15:23), and the sour demeanor of the older son you never gave me . . . in order that I
might make merry (15:29).
Earthly condition of Lazarus the poor man (vss. 20-21). By way of contrast, Lazarus is
introduced as the poor man. (ptwxo/j). The name Lazarus, a Jewish name (God
helps), is an abbreviation of Eleazer. He is a beggar, a cripple, who lay33 at the rich mans
gate and is covered with ulcerous sores. The rich mans luxurious clothing is clearly
contrasted with the poor mans coveringulcers on his skin. His food is meager in that he
wishes34 to be fed with scraps that fell off the rich mans table.35 But, in place of food, the
dogs come and lick the ulcers on his skin.36 The dogs are the street dogs which cannot
refrain from nosing the helpless, scantily-clad cripple.37 Maybe his body is too weak to drive
the dogs away. His pitiful condition is reinforced by the painful reality that the dogs were
able to eat the table scraps while Lazarus only received their licking on his sores. The
mention of the gate indicates a palatial residence and there, Lazarus is open to viewan
opportunity for Dives to minister to the leprous man. He could not pass out of his house
without seeing him. The stark scene cannot be overlooked for misery presents itself to Dives
at his gate every day. Lazarus represents opportunity for the exercise of humanity.38
Lazarus is an individual in the story but is also indicative of a class of people that fill the
world and daily come into contact with the rich. Like the priest and Levite, Dives passes by
on the other side (Lk. 10:31-32). As we learn from the other-worldly scene, there is no
indication that Dives was unaware of Lazarus condition, lying at his gate.
Act II: Other Worldly
Death and afterlife-position of Lazarus (v. 22a). The poor mans death is simply recorded
with no mention made of a funeral or burial and is followed by a brief statement about
31 Jeremias, p. 183. This clothing was regard by the Rabbis as luxurious. Encyclopedia Biblica, col.
2800.
32 BAGD, p. 467 on the adverb, splendidly (lamprw=j).
33 The verb ba/llw is often used with someone on a sickbed, e.g., Matt. 8:6.
34 The same verb, e0piqumei=n is used of the prodigal sons unfulfilled desire for the swines food
(15:16).
35 Jeremias draws attention to cultural practice with respect to the fragmentsespecially true with
respect to a rich man: One should not bite a piece of bread (which has been dipped in the dish) and
then dip it in again, on account of danger to life. (from infectious disease) Tosephta Berakoth 5.8.
36 Again, the verbal forms are customaryhabitual.
37 Jeremias, p. 184.
38 A.B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian
Publishers, 1980 reprint), p. 385.
- 114 -
where he was carriedin the bosom of Abraham. He has a benefactor who welcomes him
(16:4, 9), the great patriarch Abraham. During a middle-eastern meal, as the guests recline,
the place of honor is at the right, where the guest reclines on the chest of the host. The
readers are intended to supply the participle reclining to the text. Thus, the phrase would
be understood, reclining in Abrahams bosom in the place of honor at the banquet in the
next world.39 He is carried off and accompanied by the angels to this place of honor or
intimate fellowship.40 What a reversal for himfrom being a hungry and ulcerous beggar, to
be the honored guest at Abrahams banquet! For reasons unknown to us, Lazarus miserable
lot in life is transformed into endless bliss with the patriarch Abraham.
Death and afterlife position of the rich man (vss. 22b-23). The rich man also dies and is
buried. We read of no happy entourage to Abrahams bosom but the simple fact of his death
(v. 22b) and then of the place (v. 23a) which comes as no surprise. There is no one who is
ready to welcome him. The one who has loved himself only is in hell.
The place is Hades, the place of the dead, in the depths, in sharp contrast with heaven.41
Generally, within Judaism, Hades is the intermediate state, the shadowy underworld, which
does not seem to have the finality of Gehenna that we find developed in the inter-
testamental period. Hades is regarded as a kind of trash-heap for worn-out and tired human
beings.
However, in this story-parable, Hades is a place of torment or torture (vss. 23, 28). Thus,
there is a somber contrast from the general stereotype of Jewish (esp. Sadducean) belief
about Hadesit means torment. Later in the parable, the rich man wants to keep his five
brothers from this awful place (v. 28). The rich man discoversalbeit too late, that there is
something horrible about Hades. Although the place is far removed from Abraham and
Lazarus (from afar), he nonetheless is able to see Abraham with Lazarus in the position of
honor at the banquet. It appears that this is the first time that he had really seen Lazarus.
Personal plea (v. 24). The rich man calls to father Abraham and cries out for mercy. He
appeals to his Jewish ancestry; somehow he knows enough to recognize that he cannot move
from Hades to the place where Lazarus iswith Abraham. But he requests that Lazarus be
sent to him as his servant for the temporary relief of his torment (tip of his finger in water
and cool my tongue). Clearly, there is an implicit contrast between Lazarus desire for a
scrap from the rich mans table (earthly), and Dives request to Abraham for a drop of
waterfrom Lazarus (heavenly). How he recognizes Abrahameven Lazarusthis no-
39 BAGD, p. 443. In the fourth Gospel, just as the utterly unique One is in the bosom of the
Father who is in a position to reveal the Father (John 1:18), so the Evangelist is the one who is in the
bosom of Jesus (13:23), who is in the position to make Jesus known. See Rudolf Meyer, ko/lpoj,
TDNT, III, (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1972), p. 825.
40The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (Asher 6:4-6) conveys the idea that the souls of the
righteous are conducted by the angels: For the latter ends of men do show their righteousness (or
unrighteousness) when they meet the angels of the Lord and of Satan. For when the soul departs
troubled, it is tormented by the evil spirit, which also it served in lusts and evil works. But if he is
peaceful with joy he meeteth the angel of peace, and he leads him into eternal life.
41 BAGD, p. 16.
- 115 -
named figure that had begged at his gate, is not told. His pain is reiterated, I am in anguish
in this flame.42
Originally, the parable may have been directed against the Sadducees, who did not
believe in anything more than a shadowy underworld called Hades without real existence.
The parable, by way of contrast, discloses to his horror that this underworld is no shadowy
extinction, but a frightful existence characterized by anguish.
Reason for refusal: reversal of condition (v. 25). The divine refusal, expressed through
Abraham, summons the rich man to remember the way it was in earthly-life, which is now
dramatically reversed in the afterlife.
Earthly-life Afterlife
Rich A remember that you in your B but now he is comforted here,
man lifetime received your good
things,
Lazarus B and Lazarus in like manner A and you are in anguish.
received evil things;
Abrahams response, expressed in chiastic form, brings the reversal before the rich mans
eyes. The first explanation of the condition in the afterlife is that the respective conditions of
both persons have dramatically alteredas if to say, Its only fair! Lazarus poverty,
sickness and hunger have now been replaced by honor and comfort; the rich mans luxurious
life-style has now given way to isolation and anguish. At first glance, Abrahams word might
suggest a mechanized reversal between the experience of a person on earth with the opposite
experience in the afterlife. However, the text points the reader to sense the contrast between
the time of decision in the earthly sphere and the time when no decision can be madein
the afterlife. The veil is drawn back and the readers view in plain sight the firm and
immutable destinies of Lazarus and Dives. The one who held no regard for Lazarus on earth
can have no bona fide affiliation with him in the next world.
The contrasting after-lives of the two men are not due to ignorance. As the story
develops, we see qualities of the rich such as pride, impiety, lovelessness, hardness, etc.
Conversely, those who are physically poor often develop qualities of humility, compassion,
and dependence upon Godthey have no other recourse. It does not appear that the rich
man is condemned simply for his wealth, but because he had not seized the opportunity to
help the beggar at his gate. Lazarus was daily at his gate, but the rich man evidently believed
that there was only one life to live and spent everything in the pursuit of his own
satisfaction.
42 u(pa/rxwn e)n basa/noijv. 23, o)dunw=mai e)n th=| flogi\ v. 25, to\n to/pon tou=ton th=j
basa/nouv. 28 Enoch 8-10 speaks about the springs of water as part of Paradises landscape while
the terrible place is filled with all manner of tortures in that place: cruel darkness and unillumined
gloom, and there is no light there, but murky fire constantly flameth aloft...
- 116 -
Reason for refusal: impassable chasm (v. 26). Lazarus will not move with mercy and
relief to the rich man for he cannot. Even if it were right for Lazarus to extend momentary
relief, he cannot by virtue of a chasm which is impassable, fixed and unbridgeable;43 the
phrase expresses the irrevocability of Gods judgment.44 In brief, neither person can go to
the others place.
Plea for brothers (vss. 27-28). Abrahams verdict is accepted in terms of the rich mans
own person, i.e., Lazarus will not and cannot move to relieve the agony of Dives. At this
point, the story-parable introduces a feature distinct from the traditional story about fortune-
reversal in the afterlife. His thought turns to his five brothers who will find themselves in the
same horror of torment. What would Lazarus tell them? Perhaps the rich man believes that
Lazarus can convince them of life after the grave with a fearful retribution. He hopes that in
some way Lazarus can visit them (reincarnated, visionary?) and then witness to them (v. 28),
so effectively that they can be spared the same torture. Perhaps they will make the necessary
changes and live their lives in the light of the future. From a positive standpoint, at least the
rich mans plea moves from himself to others, his own family members.
Reason for refusal (v. 29). The reason for refusing the request for a revived Lazarus is
that the brothers do not really need another witness since they already have Moses and the
prophets, i.e., the witness of the Old Testament. The imperative is clear, Let them hear
them, while the outcome of the imperative is likewise clearthe five brothers will not hear
the witness of the OT for they are already deaf to its message. Dives, also a Jewish man, has
been surprised at the turn of events. Evidently, he and his five brothers had lived as if the
grave were the end of all things. Paradoxically, while the Scriptures, which they possess are
the only authority they recognize, yet these very Scriptures point to a life beyond the grave.
Further plea (v. 30). Although the reason is adequate, it is not enough for the rich man
for now his plea is more explicit, if the brothers will see a man brought back from the dead,
who goes to them, then surely they will repent. This is the first time in the parable where
there is some type of attitude or action which the rich man should have expressed, which
would have led to a different fate. Repentance would avert the disastrous fate and
subsequent torture. He hopes for a different fate for his brothers than what he was
experiencing. Dives use of the word repentance with reference to his brothers is curious.
The word appears to be a mockery on his lips since repentance means turning to God while
practicing deeds worthy of repentance, i.e., to the neighbor (Acts 26:20). Dives use of the
term repentance indicates that he knows the word, though it has no place in his life.
Moreover, the rich man disagrees with Abraham that the witness of the Old Testament is
sufficient for them. Dives pleads that they need a special miracle to bring about a change.
Evidently the brothers are pursuing the same course of wealth and power as Dives had done.
Restatement of reason for refusal (v. 31). The language of the last verdict is resolute,
expressed in a major-minor form of argument; the negative appraisal is certain; nothing will
43 The perfect participle, fixed (e)sth/riktai) suggests that the result of the fixing stands, i.e.,
the chasm remains immutable and impassable.

- 117 -
persuade them. The witness of the OT is more powerful than an awesome display of power
in a revived Lazarus.
Major Minor
If they do not listen to Moses and the neither will they be persuaded if someone
prophets (which they do not) should rise from the dead
The record of the OTMoses and the prophetsis always available. If they continue to
turn a deaf ear to that record they will likewise close themselves to any further revelation. In
the parable, there is a clear link forged between hearing (v. 29), repenting (v. 30), and
being persuaded (v. 31)all of which express the same openness to the Word of God.
Reading through the lines of the parables structure, it is clear that another audience
surfaces late in the storythe brothers who have the problem of unbelief. Jeremias finds the
counterpart of these six brothers in the men of the Flood generation, living a careless life,
heedless of the rumble of the approaching flood (Matt. 24:37-39 par.).45 They have not
listened to the voice of Scripture, the ongoing witness of God. Those who fail to respond to
the witness of the Old Testament will not be converted by a miracle of a magnitude such as
the raising of a brother from the dead.46 Indeed, in the fourth Gospel, the raising of Lazarus
from the dead (Jn. 11) becomes the very instrument for sealing Jesus own death sentence
(Jn. 12:9). And his critics want to put Lazarus to deathwho had just been raised from the
dead! The demand for a sign is an evasion and a sign of impenitence. Hence the sentence is
pronounced: God will never give a sign to this generation (Mk. 8:12).47 The parable
affirms the reality of a future life and shows the hearts of Sadducees to be unresponsive
since they disavow an indisputable future with its rewards and punishments.
Application
The over-all message of Luke 16 speaks of what responsible stewardship means. The
rogue of the first parable underscores positive stewardship, treasure in heaven, while the
nameless Dives exemplifies negative stewardship, treasure on earth.
The story-parable of Dives and Lazarus challenges a popular assumption (then and now)
that material blessings are a sign of divine favor reserved for special people. It is easy to
assume that God smiles favorably upon people who have it made, live in comfortable
homes, eat lavishly, drive luxurious cars, expect an abundant and regular income, and who
have amassed a sizable nest-egg stored up for retirement. Indeed, some of the promises in
Scripture seem to make such an equation (e.g., Deut. 27-28). The argument is subtle and
often convincing that God would not pour out such blessings upon one whose life is
corrupt.
46 Similarly, the appearance of Samuel through the Witch of Endor did not compel repentance (I
Sam. 28:7-25)
- 118 -
Yet, Jesus tells this story in the context of strong denunciations of the wealthy (lovers of
money v. 14) and religiously proud (those who justify themselves before men v. 15). He
is well aware that his opponents allowed their love of money, pride, and position to control
their lives. They simply were not using their wealth or position to serve others. Since God
knows their hearts, Jesus speaks even more pointedly that what they prized (wealth and
position) was loathsome and repugnant to God (v. 15)certainly no sign of divine favor.
The story reveals a surprising reversal of positions in life when this world gives way to
the other world. While Jesus does not intend to satisfy curiosity with details of the afterlife,
he nonetheless paints a canvas. A great chasm separates a life of bliss, honor, and fellowship
with Israels saints from a life of torment. The images are similar to other passages in which
Jesus speaks of many who will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown
out into the outer darkness; there men will weep and grind their teeth (Matt. 8:11-12).
The parable does not say that all the wealthy will experience torment in the afterlife,
while all the poor will experience bliss. Rather, the parable probes the attitudes of the human
heart, found in both rich and poor. In the case of Dives, there is an attitude and behavior
that expresses extravagance, unbelief, skepticism, and a callous indifference to human need
and misery at his doorstep, indeed, a mercy-less living. Lazarus is a beggar, hungry, diseased,
weak, living for scrapsliving with no apparent sign of divine favor. Yet, this man
experiences manifest favor and honor with God in the afterlife. The rich man served riches
and was given the reward of self-serving wealthtorment. Lazarus received the promise of
God for joyous fellowship with Him and others.
The parable indicts the other brothers who are living the same mercy-less, skeptical, and
unbelieving existence as their rich brother. The surprising message is voiced, they will not
move from their skepticism and unbelief even if they see Lazarus brought back from the
dead. A miracle of this proportion will avail nothing, since they are unresponsive to the call
of Moses and the prophets (v. 31). Faith will never arise from compelling miracles or
material signs of apparent blessings of God if the heart is indifferent to the divine
revelation that has already been bestowed.
True disciples do not look for spectacular signs, such as physical wealth and comfort.
Such signs are due to divine grace and Gods people can take no credit for them. The
people of God are to appreciate what God has already given in the wonder of divine
revelation, whether they are rich or poor. The divine purpose is already at work, which will
be manifest in the afterlife. Jesus pleads for a genuine assessment of true wealth, which leads
to expressions of trust, thankfulness, and dependence. The people of God are to look
beyond the confusing perplexities of pain and hardshipaware of the love of God that will
create wonderful surprises of an eternal sort. Those entrusted with wealth must demonstrate
practical stewardship in using their means to see the poor and move in compassion to
alleviate pain and hardship. Those caught in cycles of poverty, addiction, and suffering must
similarly trust God to work out his purpose with the firm assurance of a glorious future yet
in store.
- 119 -
In our day, as well as in Jesus day, it is very difficult for people to reflect upon and
accept the Christian message when their primary concern is physical survival; Jesus expresses
the gospel in a holistic manner. In our culture, such needs are well reflected in issues related
to the needs of the poor for housing, food, clothing, and a much-needed job for people to
empower themselves. When people vocalize the unconscionable words, go in peace, be
warmed, be filled (James 1:16) or go get a job, when it is clearly within their power to meet
their physical needstheir words do nothing but mock the impoverished. What can their
glib and thoughtless sayings do but reinforce the communitys social stratification? Treasure
laid up in heaven may appear as an imperative to the Church of economic responsibility that
is moved with compassion and courage to provide for the legitimate needs of the
impoverished, through its witness through words and compassionate activity for those in the
local and global community.
GREEK TO ME: MULTIMEDIA TUTORIAL FOR BIBLICAL

GREEK 3.2
Lyle J. Story. CD-ROM $40.00
http://www.greektome.biz/purchase.asp
The Greek to Me Multimedia Tutorial builds upon the text

Greek to Me and introduces an innovative method to learn
Koine Greek faster, easier and more efficiently than
conventional methods, such as the painful and ineffective
images (mnemonic aids) to help students learn grammatical concepts and principles, vocabulary
words and rules, thereby removing most of the tedious and ineffective rote-memorization
associated with the learning of biblical Greek. Throughout the tutorial students find substitute
words to aid in the mastery of the entire Greek grammar (including 600 vocabulary words-words
that occur 25 times or more in the Greek NT). The practices and assignments use each word at
least 5 times. Not only are individual words and endings learned by substitute words and linking-
but the entire grammar incorporates the time-tested memory techniques. Virtually every new
concept (case, tense, participles, etc.) has its own mnemonic device.
Example:
An example of one vocabulary word may help illustrate the approach: Observe
the Greek vocabulary word, pronounced e-gei-row, and it means I raise up. A
young would-be Robin Hood says, I raise up an egg-arrow (I raise up).
- 120 -
DEATH, KILLING AND PERSONAL IDENTITY

Todd S. Bindig1
It is an extremely commonly held intuition that death is a bad thingsomething to be
generally avoided. Most also hold that death is a particular harm for the one who dies. In
addition to this, most hold that because of the harm of death, killing is a serious moral
wrong. The connection between the badness of death and the wrongness of killing seems to
be generally in accord with our strongest held intuitions. Many, such as McMahan2 and
Bradley3, have argued that the argumentative force required to defeat this basic intuition
would need to be considerable, and it is likely that its defeat is impossible.
However, if a general Materialist approach to personal identity is true, it is extremely hard
to explain why death can be wholly bad and thus why killing is wrong or why it generally
makes good sense to avoid death. Epicurus famously argued that death is not, in fact, bad
for the one who dies4 and yet it seems clear that an Epicurean would not abandon the
intuition that killing is generally wrong.
Most Materialists who attempt to salvage common-sense intuitions about death do so by
comparing two livesthe actual life led with the life that would have been led had the
individual not died. However, this is not actually an answer to the Epicurean challenge of
comparing being dead with being alive, but rather changes the subject; it is never explained
how death is bad for the dead when they are dead. Examples of this change of subject are
Marquis claims that killing a person deprives that individual of a valuable future or a
future like ours5. In addition to this, there are others, like McMahan6, who argue that
interestsrather than personal identity7are what matters to us and that the frustration of
these interests is what is bad about death and wrong about killing.
Hershenov8 believes that there is another way for the Materialist to salvage common-
sense intuitions about death. He explains this by illustrating the fact that while death is not
experienced as a harm by the one who dies, killing is wrong because it prevents the
individual killed from experiencing possible future goods. The distinction between this
position and that of Marquis is that, in Hershenovs view, no individual remains to be
1 Todd S. Bindig, PhD, is Assistant Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Niagara University. He is
the author of Identity, Potential and Design - How they Impact the Debate over the Morality of
Abortion (VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e.K., 2008).
2 McMahan, Jeff The Ethics of Killing: Problems on the Margins of Life. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002: p.104

3 Bradley, Ben Why Death is Bad for the One Who Dies Nous 38, no.1 (2004): p. 18.
4 Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus in: Epicurus: The Extant Remains trans. Cyril Bailey. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1926.

5 Marquis, Don Why is Abortion Immoral in Journal of Philosophy, 86, no. 4 (1989): 183-202.
6 Ibid, McMahan ch. 2.
7 I shall, momentarily, explain what is entailed in this view in much more detail.
8 Hershenov, David A More Palatable Epicureanism in American Philosophical Quarterly. 44,
no.2 (2007): 171-180.
- 121 -
deprived of anything, so it is more accurate to say that the individual has been prevented
from having any future experience9.
The problem with these answers is that they do not fully capture our moral intuitions
about death. It is my view that personal identity is important, even if interests are also
important, and that while the wrongness of killing is not dependant on the badness of death,
the fact remains that death is an unnatural state for a human being and is thus bad, or
harmful, for the individual who dies. So, while the wrongness of killing does not require
death to be an experienced harm for the one who dies, the fact that it is harmful makes
killing all the more wrong. As a consequence of this, I shall argue that a Hylomorphic
approach to personal identity, rather than Substance Dualism or Materialism, is most
consistent with common-sense intuitions about death.
Epicureanism, Interests, and Identity
Epicurus famously argued that death is not something to be feared as it is not
experienced by the one who dies. He writes: death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to
us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we dont
exist. It does not concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not and the
latter are no more.10 The general point being: one needs to be in existence to be harmed, at
death we cease to exist, therefore death is not something that is experienced as a harm by the
one who dies, i.e.: it is not bad for us.
Many argue that this has disturbing implications for the wrongness of killing.
Silverstein11, for example, argues that accepting the Epicurean argument would have an
extremely negative impact on our general intuitions that killing is wrong: if death isnt bad,
why would killing be wrong?
However, Hershenov points out that it is a mistake to make this criticism. He argues:
What we should say is that killing is wrong because it prevents the victim from having more
goods, i.e., a longer rewarding life.12 So, even if it is true that the individual ceases to exist at
death and can therefore no longer experience harm, or anything else for that matter, it is still
wrong to kill this individual because killing him or her makes it impossible for him or her to
experience the goods that he or she otherwise would have experienced by living a longer life.
Marquis makes a similar point, stating: When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I
now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would
come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future.13
The distinction between the views lies in the details, not the essence of the arguments. In
Hershenovs view, things like deprivation and misfortune are states and a state needs a
9 I shall address the distinction between Marquis and Hershenovs views in more detail
momentarily.
10 Ibid, Epicurus
11 Silverstein, Harry s. The Evil of Death in Journal of Philosophy 77, no. 7 (1980): 401-424.
12 Ibid, Hershenov 179.
13 Ibid, Marquis 192.
- 122 -
subject. Since, as he argues, after death no subject remains, it makes more sense to speak of
preventing the individual from having future goods rather than depriving the individual of
that future. The general point made by both Hershenov and Marquis is that in killing an
individual we take away things that the individual in question values or would value if given
the opportunity.
In a different approach to this problem, McMahan argues that personal identity is not
really what matters to us, in such cases, but it is rather our interests that are of primary
importance. The way that this position is generally argued is with the following example: lets
suppose that an individual brain is damaged from a stroke, such that only the left
hemisphere remains functional. We would usually say that the individual survives with half
of his brain and if we transplanted that functioning hemisphere, we would have transplanted
that individual. However, lets suppose that we separate two halves of a fully functional brain
and place them in two different individuals. Both individuals can survive with half of a
functioning brain, as has just been shown. It seems, however, that the original individual
does not survive as either of the new subjects, for it would be arbitrary for him to be one
rather than the other, illogical for him to be both (if they were not identical) and implausible
that he be a scattered being. However, it seems that the original individuals psychology
survives in both the two other individualsat least in partand thus, it is argued that, the
original individual ought to be extremely concerned for the well-being of these other
individuals. The claim is that though he, himself, does not survive, the survival of his
psychology is just as good. McMahan, and others, thus conclude that our psychology, or our
interests, is what is ultimately important to us, not our personal identity.
He defends this in an account of the badness of death called the Time-Relative Interest
account, which:
evaluates death in terms of the effect that it has on the victims time-
relative interests14 rather than on the value of his life as a whole. It holds
that the badness of death is proportional to the strength of the victims
time-relative interest in continuing to live. The strength of his time-
relative interest in continuing to live is a function of both the net amount
of good his life would contain if he were not to die, and the extent to
which he would be bound to himself in the future, if he were not to die,
by the prudential unity relations.15
Basically, what McMahan is arguing is that, when evaluating the death of a given
individual, we need to make this evaluation based on that individuals interests in continuing
to live at the time of death, rather than making this evaluation on the basis of the individuals
life as a whole. The reason that McMahan argues in this way is that he does not believe that
an individuals connection to his or her self is constant over timehe believes that we are
more or less connected to ourselves over time. For example, an infant is less connected to
14 By Time-Relative Interest McMahan means our interests at that given moment.

15 Ibid, McMahan 105-6. By prudential unity relations McMahan means the connection we have
at that given moment to the individual that will exist at a later time. For example, McMahan thinks that
the connection between an infant and the adult that will exist twenty years later is extremely weak.
- 123 -
the future thirty-year-old than is the twenty-year-old or the forty-year-old. This is simply a
result of his position that an individuals psychological connections and interests are what
matter, rather than the individual continuing as a single substancewe have more in
common, when we are thirty, with the interests we had when we were twenty than when we
were 3 months old.
The way McMahan argues that we ought to assess the badness of death is to judge how
much good this individuals life would have if the individual didnt die and measure this in
relation to how connected the present individual is to the individual who would exist in the
future. If the present individual is not strongly connected to the future individual who would
be experiencing the goods, then the present individual does not have much interest in
continuing to live. Thus, McMahan argues that the death of a fetus or infant is not very bad
because, in his view, they are not closely bound to the individual who might experience
goods in the future. It seems clear that a fetus or infant does not have future plans or
dreamsat least none of us seem to recall any of these things when we reach adulthood
and thus it seems that the fetus or infant is not strongly psychologically connected with the
individual he or she will grow to be in the future. McMahan further believes that common
intuitions support his view because most do not see the death of a fetus or infant as equally
tragic to the death of a youth.
To begin with, it seems that McMahans observation about peoples response to different
deaths might be more accurately explained relationally, rather than as an evaluation of
differing degrees of tragedy. Isnt it also the case that we grieve more over the deaths of our
friends than we do over the death of a stranger? And is it not also the case that we grieve
most for those friends whom we have known the longest and with whom we had the
greatest connection? It seems that it is at least possible that the difference in our response to
the death of a teen-age child as opposed to the death of an infant child or a miscarriage
might have more to do with how long and well we have known the child who dies and the
strength of our connection to that child, rather than that the deaths somehow have a
different level of tragedy in themselves.
Additionally, it seems odd to say that personal identity is not important. Taking the view
that psychology and interests are primary seems mistaken as it is the person, who is the
subject of these interests, that is generally identified as significant. Certainly interests matter,
but the person who has those interests, or will have those interests, matters significantly
more. A person is something that changes and develops over time. In that development,
interests also come into being and diminish over time. Whether or not an individual has a
given interest at a given time, that individual either is or is not relevant per se.
To make the point that it is in fact personal identity that matters, let us further examine
the separated-brain-transplant example, used above to argue that psychology and interests
are what actually matter, rather than identity. It is not clear that I ought to care more about
the two individuals that get the halves of my brain than any other individuals. Having my
interests and psychology continue does not seem as important to me as my personal survival.
Lets suppose that I programmed my computer to respond as if it were mewith the same
insight and witand lets suppose that it was also capable of completing the projects on
which I am currently working, all on its own. If a terrorist were to take me hostage and,
- 124 -
before cutting off my head, attempt to reassure me by making reference to my computer

persisting with my psychology and completing my projects, I would feel absolutely no
comfort. Therefore, it seems to me that personal identity is importantit matters a great
deal to me that it is actually me, and not just my psychology or interests, who continues to
exist.
Furthermore, just because an individual is not strongly psychologically connected with
his or her future goods, does not mean that is morally acceptable to prevent, deprive or
remove those goods from him or her. Taking things of value away from an individualor,
in terms that Hershenov would use, preventing an individual from having something of
value he or she would otherwise haveis wrong whether or not the individual experiences
that event. For example, an individual who is completely addicted to drugs might not be
awareor care if he were awareof the loss of valuable things in his life, for example the
loss of his house in order to support his drug habit, but losing this valuable thing is still bad.
Additionally, on an interesting side note, just because someone values something does not
make it wrong to take it away: imagine taking the drugs away from the addict. In so doing,
we help him but he believes that he is being seriously harmed. The point is that it is not the
perceived value of that of which one is deprived or prevented from having, but the actual
value of the thing that impacts the wrongness of taking it.
It does not seem to be necessary for death to be experienced as bad for killing to be
wrong. Thus it is safe to conclude that the wrongness of killing is not necessarily dependant
on the badness of death. However, I believe that most not only hold the intuition that killing
is wrong, but also that death is experienced as bad by the one who dies. Here I am not
merely discussing the event of dying, but also the state of being dead. Most hold some view
of a paradise-like after-life, but most people would also prefer to be alive, all things
considered. So, when I am saying that most would say that the state of death is a bad thing,
for claritys sake, it might make sense to think of this as bad relative to the alternative of
being alive, rather than a wholly negative experience, like eternal damnation, for example.
We can understand the badness of death and the wrongness of killing the way that
philosophers like Hershenov explain it, that we avoid death not because it is a bad state but
because we desire future goods, but this does not seem to thoroughly capture the common
intuition regarding the badness of death. If in order for us to be the subject of an experience
we must be present, and our intuition is that we are the subject of a negative experience via
death, then it seems that our intuitions are telling us that we are present in the state of death.
It is my view that the reason for many contemporary philosophers rejecting, or having
trouble with, this conclusion is that many contemporary philosophers take some version of a
Materialist approach to personal identity. While there are a few Materialists who accept some
notion of an after-life16, most Materialist hold the view that death is the end of our
existenceas this seems more consistent with the view that we are simply material beings.
However, if we have the strong intuition that we experience anything at allpositive or
negativein the state of death, these intuitions only make sense if Materialism, or at least
the general Materialist view that we cease to exist at death, is false.
16 Peter Van Inwagen, Kevin Corcoran, David Hershenov, etc.
- 125 -
The Necessity of an Immaterial Soul

If we continue to exist as the subject of interests and experience once the material body
dies, this implies that at least one element that makes us up is immaterial, i.e.: a soul. But
how shall we understand this immaterial soul in the light of our intuitions about the badness
of death and the wrongness of killing?
If, as a Substance Dualist17 approach to personal identity would generally hold, what we
primarily are is a soul that interacts with a physical body for a period of time, then there are a
number of odd implications to our argument. First of all, it would seem that death, the
separation of the body and soul, would not only not harm the person dying, but would
rather be of great benefit to this individual. Most Substance Dualists believe that the body
somehow frustrates the true or complete activities of the soul and thus is somewhat of a
detriment. Therefore, being rid of the physical body would actually be not only helpful, but
our most natural state. This, however, is directly contrary to the intuition that death is bad
and therefore seems to fly in the face of common-sense. Not only would we not experience
something negative or be deprived of or prevented from having a valuable future, Substance
Dualism seems to imply that death puts us in a much better state of affairs than we would
have with a longer life!
In addition to the problem of Substance Dualism implying a counter-intuitive conclusion
about the badness of death, there is the problem of the wrongness of killing. If death is a
great benefit for us, why would killing ever be wrong? It seems that, contrary to one of our
most deeply ingrained common-sense intuitions, killing would have to be a good thing to do.
After all, if by killing someone you put them in an infinitely better and more natural state
than even the best they could experience in life, it seems that killing them would be the best
thing that you could possibly do to them. The only answer given as to why killing ones self
or others is generally wrong even though death is a good thing is an appeal to a divine
prohibition of these actions18. This appeal, however, seems arbitrary and irrational. If death
is much better than life, why would any god who was good command us to never kill
ourselves or others lest we face eternal punishment?19
17 See: Plato, Phaedo, in: Complete Works of Plato. Edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis,
Indiana:
Hackett Publishing Company, 1997. or, Descartes, Rene, Meditations of First Philosophy. 3rd ed.
Translated by Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
18 Plato Phaedo in: Complete Works of Plato. Edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis, Indiana:
Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

19 While I am sympathetic to using theology in ones philosophyindeed, I do not believe that it is
possible to separate the two and have a comprehensive system in eitherI, like St. Thomas Aquinas,
believe that the two are compatible. Therefore, I dont think that theological positions will ever be
irrational or that Gods commands are arbitrary, rather the dictates of faith and reason are compatible
and that which God commands is rationally defensible. Thus, it would make no sense for God to
prohibit something that was good for us, as this position implies death to be. Therefore, either God is
irrationalwhich I do not accept as a possibilityor this position is irrational.
- 126 -
Ultimately, the logical implications of a Substance Dualist approach are even less
compatible with our intuitions that death is bad and killing is wrong than is a Materialist
approach. However, in order to maintain common-sense intuitions, it seems that we have to
accept some sort of theory of personal identity that includes an immaterial soul while still
maintaining that death is a bad, unnatural or undesirable thing for those who die.
A Hylomorphic Answer to the Problem
Let us examine a Hylomorphic solution to this problem. A Hylomorphic account of
personal identity will propose that we are a composite of form and matter. Many of the
functions of the soul are exercised through the physical body, but we are not ultimately to be
identified with a physical thing; some functions are not materially exercisedi.e.: will and
intellect. So, our identity is not merely material and it is not merely immaterial, but a
composite of both. Therefore, when the physical body dies, the immaterial part of us
remains but we can only claim that we remain in an extremely privative state20.
This solves the problem of how death could be experienced as bad or unnaturalif we
naturally are a form/matter composite and the matter is removed, then we are in an
extremely unnatural state and unnatural states are generally considered to be bad. This also
gives additional weight to why killing would be wrongnot only do you deprive someone of
or prevent someone from having future goods when you kill him or her, you also place him
or her in an extremely privative state. Hylomorphism, then, seems to be generally consistent
with our intuitions that death is bad and killing is wrong, especially when compared to
Materialism and Substance Dualism. It is true that the vast majority of people do not accept
a Hylomorphic account of personal identity, but it seems that this account is most consistent
with common-sense intuitions about the nature of death and killing. However, there are
serious concerns that have to be addressed by a Hylomorphic account of death.
Addressing concerns with the Hylomorphic account of Death
The first problem that presents itself is a theological one. Most people who believe in the
existence of an immortal soul also believe in the existence of some sort of god. Why would
God create beings who would necessarily, eventually die and experience this severely
unnatural state? It seems that the only answer that would be consistent with a god who is
good is that God did not intend us to die. This is consistent with a Catholic theological
position.
The Catholic position (as well as that of some Protestant traditions) is that death was not
intended by God, but entered the world as a result of the sin of mankind. The Bible testifies
to this21: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for the day that
20 This position is in agreement with the Non-Thomistic Hylomorphic Account given by Koch-
Hershenov and Hershenov in Personal Identity and Purgatory in Religious Studies: An

International Journal of the Philosophy of Religion 42 (2006) 439-451.though there are slight and
subtle differences.
21 As does the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The
Churchs Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches
that death entered the world on account of mans sin. Even though mans nature is mortal, God had
- 127 -
you eat of it you shall die. (Gen 2:17), because God did not make death and does not
delight in the death of the living. (Wis 1:13), Therefore as sin came into the world through
one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned
(Rom 5:12). Therefore, we can conclude that this unnatural state of death was not the fault
of God but a logical consequence of sin; an unnatural result of unnatural behavior.
Once death has occurred, it is the Catholic position that the individual ends up in one of
three destinations: Heaven, Purgatory or Hell22. For our purposes we shall concentrate
primarily on Purgatory, as this state is most consistent with the conclusions drawn by the
arguments made in this paper and it is generally assumed, by Catholic thinkers, that this is
where the vast majority of individuals wind up immediately after death23.
The point of Purgatory is to cleanse the forgiven individual24 of any connection to sin
and thus make him or her ready for an eternity in Heaven. This cleansing is assumed to be
unpleasant25. Ultimately, however, all those in Purgatory may look forward to a final
destination in Heaven. How can we rationally understand this process in the light of a
Hylomorphic understanding of personal identity?
If Hylomorphism is correct, death occurs when the form and the matter are separated.
At this point the matter immediately begins the process of decaythere is nothing to
configure it so it begins to fall apart (at varying rates depending on the surrounding
environment). The form, or soul, remains. All functions of the soul that were previously
exercised via the mattermovement, growth, sensations, etc.are now unable to be
exercised as there is no matter through which they may be exercised, though these powers
continue to exist virtually. The functions that never directly utilized matter in their
destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the
world as a consequence of sin. Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not
sinned is thus the last enemy of man left to be conquered.
22 Actually, Catholics believe that Purgatory is temporary and that all individuals who go there will
eventually go to Heaven (as I shall point out momentarily). Therefore, ultimately, there are two
destinations. For our purposes, because immediately after death there are three options though one is
temporary, we shall address all three destinations.
23 Heaven is, by definition, an entirely miraculous state and thus our speculationno matter how
rationally basedas to how things work there is uncertain at best (Is Heaven a strictly immaterial state?
Do we have a body in Heaven?). Certain elements of Heaven become important to this theory at the
end of time but the situation between our time and that time is essentially unknown as those details
have not been Revealed to us. As for Hell, it is supposed to be the worst state imaginable, so any
negative conclusions that we come to about the state of affairs for any individual in Hell ought to be
expected.
24 One who has been redeemed by Christ.
25 Catholics interpret the following passage as a description of Judgment and of what one might
expect in Purgatory (emphasis added). each mans work will become manifest; for the Day will
disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has
done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any
mans work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only through fire. (1
Corinthians 3:13-15)
- 128 -
exercisewill and intellectwill continue to work.26 The soul, generally speaking, now
exists in a state called Purgatory where it is prepared for its final heavenly destination.
If the purpose of Purgatory is to cleanse the individual from all connection with sin, we
can see this state as rehabilitative. Two problems arise with the Hylomorphic account
because of this. The first problem is raised by Koch-Hershenov and Hershenov27, there is a
question of fairness involved in making the soul suffer for the acts of the person, as the soul
is but a part of the whole. In addition, how can whatever benefit is gained by the soul carry
over to the person if the soul is but a part of a greater whole. The second problem, which is
ultimately answered by Koch-Hershenov and Hershenov, is the question of continued
identity: how can I be said to continue to exist when all that remains of me is my
disembodied soul, which is just a part of me?
To answer the first question, we must examine the nature of sin. Sin is a complicated
action with many elements. Generally, though not always, sin has to do with some physical
object of desire; some lesser good that we choose over a greater good that we ought to be
choosing. However, the location of the event of sin lies in the will and the intellect. When
one commits a sin of lust, has his or her eyes, hands, genitals, or some other part of his or
her body acted in dysfunctional manner? No, the physical parts have done exactly what it is
in their nature to do. It is the will, the intellect, or both, that have become attracted to the
object of lust and thus caused the whole individual to sin. Therefore, the location of the
dysfunction is in the will and the intellect, i.e.: the intellective elements of the soul which
continue to function after the death of the body.
When one injures ones ankle such that it does not function properly, it seems that it is
proper to say that the person is injured and the location of the injury is in ones ankle. The
ankle is part of the person. Though the injury to the ankle is distressing to the whole person,
it is not necessary that the whole person be rehabilitated, only the injured part. We dont
usually do wrist and arm strengthening exercises along with the prescribed ankle and lower-
body strengthening exercises when we undergo physical therapy to rehabilitate an injured
ankle. It seems that rehabilitation is usually only done on the area where the dysfunction is
primarily located.
Therefore, if sin is based on the will and the intellect, rehabilitation only needs to involve
the will and the intellect. The will and the intellect continue to function in the afterlife with
no distractions from any other objects of attention than God. Therefore, it seems that it
makes logical sense to have the soul existing without the body, for a time, to clarify that
those things to which we were attracted and that led us to sin were not as important as God.
It does not seem that we necessarily have to be in the throws of the physical world and all of
its temptations for this rehabilitation to occur.28 On the contrary, it seems that the clarity
26 Aquinas, St. Thomas Summa Contra Gentiles. Vol. 2, Translated by James F. Anderson. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956. and Aquinas, St. Thomas Summa Theologica. Vol. 1+3,
Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Allen, Texas: Christian Classics, 1948.
27 Ibid, Koch-Hershenov and Hershenov 437.
28 This argument is in response to a comment made by Koch-Hershenov and Hershenov at the
end of their paper, Ibid.
- 129 -
necessary actually requires that we be removed from the temptations to be rehabilitated. It

seems that a heroin addict has a much greater chance of recovery if he is kept away from the
drug. Continuing to shoot-up will probably not result in rehabilitation.
The objection of Koch-Hershenov and Hershenov to this is that virtue involves not only
doing the right thing but having the right desires and that we must habituate both, which
seems impossible if the object of desire is removed. While it is true that habituation is
required in order to reach virtue, it is habituation of behavior, not of desires. Desires are
automatic responses that are not under our direct control. While self-control is not a virtue,
it is the path to virtue. By learning what is right and internalizing this we start down the path
of virtue. Desires fall into place automatically when we truly embrace a virtuous life.
The way that this would work out in Purgatory is that eventually the individuals intellect
and will would be rehabilitated. At that point, the desire to sin would never again occur as
the individual would have now embraced virtue. To connect it to the example of the heroin
addict, lets suppose that the addict goes to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. The addict is
physically prevented from being in the presence of the drug. Over time the process of
rehabilitation takes place, such that the addict never again desires the drug. It is not
necessary that he be physically able to choose to shoot up during the rehabilitation process
for that rehabilitation to occur, rather it seems that he only need to learn healthy behavior to
be rehabilitated. To put it another way, it does not seem necessaryand in fact would likely
be detrimentalfor me to be barraged with images of naked women for me to habituate the
virtue of chastity. Rather, it seems that for me to manifest this virtue I ought to live a chaste
life and keep myself away from unchaste situations or images. Only then would I both do
the virtuous thing and have the virtuous desire.
One might ask how one could manifest a virtue, say courage, if not by habituation? While
I do think that habituation is generally necessary for a virtue, it might not be necessary to
habituate virtue in the way stated by Aristotle in Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics: we
become brave by doing brave things29 (emphasis added). Rather, it is possible that we can
habituate a virtue by repeatedly learning its value in an intellectual sense. Note that in Book
III of Platos Republic30 it is not argued that the young guardians learn courage by fighting
or facing fears, but by being taught what to fear. Therefore it seems that it is possible for
habituation of virtue to be intellectually, rather than physically, based.
Oderberg31 addresses the problem of the fairness of the soul being held accountable for
the acts of the person. He compares this to the example of a C.E.O. being held accountable
for the illegal actions of his corporation. He explains how placing responsibility in this way
makes rational sense thusly:
29 Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics in: The Basic Works of Aristotle, Edited by Richard McKeon
New York: Random House, 1941. (1103b)

30 Plato, Republic in: Complete Works of Plato Edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

31 Oderberg, David Hylemorphic Dualism in Personal Identity Edited by Paul, Miller & Paul.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- 130 -
All we need to see is that it is coherent to suggest that a part might be held responsible
for the actions of the wholemoreover, that not any part will do, but only that part (or
those parts) which are, as it were, in the drivers seat. the person I am continues to exist
as a soul (even though I am not numerically identical with a soul), it must be me who is
responsible precisely for what I did when my soul informed a certain body. the soul is
held responsible solely in virtue of its being the chief part whereby I, the person, did
whatever I did that incurred responsibility.32
Oderberg is simply explaining that it makes sense to hold a part accountable for the
actions of a whole when that part was in control of the wholeas it seems the soul is in a
Hylomorphic account. He then makes the further step of stating that the person continues
to exist as the soul after the death of the body. This important step leads us to our second
problem.
This first problem, of it only being the soul that is rehabilitated in Purgatory, can be
solved even more completely if we can say that the soul that continues to exist is not merely
a part of the individual, but the individual himself that continues to exist in Purgatory. Thus,
the second problemhow can I be said to continue to exist when all that remains of me is
my disembodied soul, which is just a part of meis still quite serious and must be addressed
but in finding its solution we will also more completely answer the first problem.
The answer to this second question is that though my soul, which up until death was only
a part of me, is all that remains of me, I continue to exist as distinct from, but temporarily
sharing all my parts with, my soul. Koch-Hershenov and Hershenov illustrate this idea with
an example of a tree. At one point in time, the tree consisted of a trunk and its branches. If
we cut all of the branches off of the tree, the tree would remain, but as a spatially coexistent
entity with its trunk, which was once merely a part of the tree. Therefore, it is now proper to
say that though they share all of their parts, they have different modal and persistence
conditionsthey are distinct though there is no part that one has that the other lacks33.
The soul remains after the death of the body. Before the death of the body the soul was
merely a part of the person, but now it is the only part that remains. Therefore, this part that
is all that is left of the whole, is now coexistent with the whole, i.e. we are reduced to this
part. If all that were left were some inert limbsay a severed handit seems that it would
be odd to say that I continued to exist as this hand. However, the soul is the active
principle of lifein other words, it is a part but it is the most important part, where all of
our proper functions originate. Therefore, to say that at the death of the body the soul
remains as all that is left of us and that we thus continue to exist as a being that now only
consists of one proper part is not that far of a stretch. However, it must be made completely
clear that we do not continue to exist in a natural, but in a privative condition. An extremely
important element is missing, namely a material body. Therefore, though we continue to
exist, we do not continue in a natural state.
This conclusion solves the first problem, in that the soul being rehabilitated in Purgatory
is not, strictly speaking, merely a part. During that portion of our existence we are reduced to
32 Ibid, Oderberg 98.

33 Ibid, Koch-Hershenov and Hershenov 445.
- 131 -
this part, so it is actually more proper to say that we are rehabilitated in Purgatory rather than
our soul is rehabilitated there.
In the end, our now-rehabilitated soul is reunited with a physical body34. This occurs
when God recreates the world with a new Heaven and earth that are not separated.
Therefore, things like human beings, who are by nature a form/matter composite, can
coexist with God and the angels, who are by nature immaterial forms. At this time, there is
no more death and we exist in our natural state eternally.
Conclusion
It seems that we can safely come to the conclusion that a Hylomorphic explanation of
personal identity is most consistent with our common-sense intuitions about the badness
of death and the wrongness of killing. A Substance Dualist approach has moral
consequences that are directly contrary to our general intuitions, so we must completely
abandon either one or the other. A Materialist approach, on the other hand, can be framed
so as to allow us to maintain the intuition that killing is wrong and death is something that
makes sense to avoid or prevent, though it seems that we would have to give up the idea that
death is experienced in a negative way by the one who dies. Hylomorphism, however, allows
us to maintain both the general intuition that death is bad, and experienced as such by the
one who dies, as well as the intuition that killing is wrong. In fact, the case for the wrongness
of killing with Hylomorphism is stronger than a Materialist understanding because the
follower of Hylomorphism can not only appeal to the denial of future goods or
prevention of future goods arguments, but also can point to an actual harm that is
experienced by the individual killed, i.e.: that he or she is put into an unnatural/privative
state.
Most people have a natural aversion to death. Some have explained this away as a fear of
the unknown or of change. Others have said that it is based on a desire to experience more
good things via a longer life. I believe that our aversion to death is based on the fact that
death is an unnatural state for us; that we were not originally supposed to die. Ultimately, we
now must come to grips with the reality of death. It is my view that a combination of a
philosophical explanationa Hylomorphic account of personal identityand a Catholic
theological explanationthe nature of Purgatory and the ultimate resurrection of the
bodyyield an explanation of the badness of death and the wrongness of killing that is most
consistent with our common intuitions on these subjects.
34 A physical resurrection at the end of time is neither a new nor uniquely Catholic belief. It has
been held by all Christians, from the beginning (e.g., Rev 21).
- 132 -
BOOK REVIEWS
Port-Royal et la littrature. Vol. II. By Philippe Sellier. Paris: Honor Champion,
2000.
A preeminent scholar of Pascal, of Port-Royal and of Augustinianism, Philippe Sellier
has collected in this volume eighteen studies which elegantly and insightfully reveal a vista of
lampleur du rayonnement de Port-Royal in the grand sicle. No less fruitful than seminal,
they have already made their influence deeply feltall but one are retouchings of essays
which first appeared elsewherebut their concentration in a well-ordered and convenient
volume will only widen and intensify their own rayonnement.
Whereas the first volume centred on Port-Royal and Pascal, this one opens with two
studies of general topics -- literature and theology in the context of Port-Royal, and Port-
Royal as an emblem of Catholic reform. It proceeds to groupings of essays centred on
Augustines influence on the centurys bitter controversies over grace; on la Rochefoucaulds
Maximes, whose esprit mondain it informs and imbues despite the absence from their pages
of the Christian ideal; on the vernacular Bible, especially of course the Bible of Port-Royal;
on women writers, most particularly Mme. de Lafayette; and on Racine. The volume closes
with a vue densemble, Augustinisme et littrature classique, and a study of the
Augustinian subtext of Romantic mal du sicle.
The latter, which aims to complement Pierre Courcelles inventory of Romantic authors
haunted by Augustine in Les Confessions de Saint Augustin dans la tradition littraire
(1963), takes as its axis the preminently Augustinian theme of linquitude unforgettably
evoked in the opening of the Confessions: Fecisti nos ad Te, et inquietum est cor nostrum
donec requiescat in Te, Vous nous avez crs pour Vous, et notre cur est toujours agit de
trouble et dinquitude jusqu ce quil trouve son repos en Vous (p. 268). It can emerge as
linquitude noire of Senancour for whom [Lhomme] cherche [son vrai lieu] partout avec
inquitude et sans succs dans des tnbres impntrables, or again as linquitude blanche
of Chateaubriand, Lammenais and Manzoni where Aux tnbres vont se substituer le clair-
obscur et lesprance (p. 272). If we add to these the theme of la hantise de la corruption
that besets the writing of even some modern unbelievers (p.85); the theme of linconstance
noire, la prcipitation torrentueuse du temps which leaves us hants par le travail de la
mort au sein de la vie apparemment la plus riante (p. 260); and, finally, the theme of the
vitiating role of amour-propre in all merely human virtue (pp. 139-169), then we have the
core, but only this, of the augustinisme littraire whose power continuously to fascinate
Sellier tellingly details.
This volume and its predecessor belong on the shelf next to Sainte-Beuves Port-Royal.
They are not merely Parerga and Paralipomena, to borrow Schopenhauers title, but a
deepening and a widening. They are also a demonstrationand not only of the truth or
limitations of particular views and insights, including some of Sainte-Beuve and of other
forerunners. Taken together, they afford a preuve convaincante that, thanks to the work of
Sellier and others, today one may call the sicle classique le sicle de saint Augustin without
- 133 -
risk of hyperbole, let alone whiff of extravagance (cf. esp. pp. 253-7). Surveying the last fifty
or so years one might well say, with Blake, What is now provd was once only imagined.
Yet, the story of Port-Royal and Augustines influence in the seventeenth century is one
by no means fit to quicken the pulse only of specialists in theological controversies and
literary influences. More than a slice of literary history, ranging from throne to cell, it is a
whole human comedy or tragi-comedy, a protracted drama (likened by Sellier and others to
Sophocles Antigone). It has all the allure of great personalities and of high endeavor
spiritual, moral and political. It affords the affecting spectacle of a moral and theological
resistance at grips with a Protean modernity and the relentless power of Church and State. It
has all the pathos evoked by brutal persecution, most notably of religieuses incontestably
devout and arguably innocent; all the romance of a Lost Cause (Lee and Hannibal will always
have an aura that victorious Grant and Scipio do not); and all the drama of a high-stakes
struggle for the soul of the Church in which it, and indeed the world, are beckoned to a road
not taken.1 To the victors honors, peace, preferments; to the losers prison, exile, disgrace,
disbanding, disinterment.
The present volume contains two indits: Index biblique de Racine: Esther et Athalie,
and, the longest of the studies, the encapsulating and revealing Quest-ce que le
jansnisme? A glance at the latter will give an idea of of the particular riches of the whole
(ex ungue leonem), though indeed the same might be said of others of the essays, especially
those on the context, genesis and principles of translation of the Bible de Port-Royal. These
include a significant letter (with commentary) on biblical translation from Anglique Arnauld
dAndilly to Antoine Arnauld; though printed in the eighteenth century, it is so little known
as to be virtually an indit.
Jansenism, a coinage of the adversaries of those who mostly styled themselves
disciples de saint Augustin, is, as Madame de Svign2 averred, Antoine Arnauld argued3
and Jean Orcibal showed,4 in effect the name of a straw man whose religion of fear,
sorrow, austerity and rigorism is largely an illusion. In fact, its only significant grounding in
reality lies in the rigorism of the Augustinians censure of the theatre. The fear and sorrow
imputed to the Jansenist outlook are especial calumnies, for the Augustinians are toujours
soucieux dquilibrer linquitude et la joie. Indeed, Saint-Cyran rptait que nul ne serait
heureux dans le ciel sil ne lavait t sur la terre (pp. 49-50). Fear and sorrow would far
better befit the unbeliever. For in Augustines uncompromising view -- one well in accord
1 The Augustinians beckoned towards a God whose justice, as evidenced by his allotment of the
grace needful for salvation, was an impenetrable mystery, and away from a spirit of innovation and
accommodation lest all should be for the times and nothing for the truth. The Church turned
towards a conception of grace (Molinism) that reflected a divine justice agreeable to le sens commun,
and towards a spirit of aggiornamento. For a concise account of this momentous turning see
Leszek Kolakowski, God Owes Us Nothing (Chicago, 1995).
2 Letter of 9 June 1680.
3 Phantme du jansnisme, ou justification des prtendus jansnistes (l686).
4 In a study of the same title as Selliers (l953, also 1997 in tudes dhistoire et de littrature
religieuses, Paris, Klincksieck).
- 134 -
with La Rochefoucaulds critique of the despotic reign of self-love over our all-too human,
merely apparent virtuesthe unbelievers whole life is a sin (omnis vita infidelium
peccatum est).5
To these remarks one might add the obvious point that Jansenist, by implying
membership in a sect --this of course is the meaning of the Greek root of heresy--
effectively begs the question of the groups orthodoxy or unorthodoxy. Moreover it, and for
that matter Augustinian, merit the caveat that they might beguile us into undervaluing
other influences on the group of Port-Royal, e.g., St. John Chrysostom. The story of his
influence, though unlike Augustines little likely to involve the emergence of a continent
englouti, nonetheless remains to be told in full.
But if, as unforgettably represented in Pascals Provinciales, their Jesuit adversaries were
Protean in the manifold forms in and with which they sought to accommodate a changing,
modern world, neither were the Jansensists immune to metamorphosis. The jansnisme-
fantme had its nimbus centred on controversies over graceand Sellier has a succinct but
authoritative account of the famous Five Propositions and the censure of St. Augustine
himself implicit in theirs (pp. 67-71). But after the bull Unigenitus (1713) it emerged as a
jansnisme-Prote. Now a response to the bulls ultramontanism, restrictions to access to
the Bible, et. al., it fostered a climate in which Port-Royal est devenu un veritable mythe, le
symbole de la rsistance la tyrannie des pouvoirs (53).
Yet, when we turn from myths and phantoms, we find the reality of Jansenism scarcely
less elusive than they. If we keep in mind that an Augustinian as engaged as Pierre Nicole
distanced himself from his fellows by espousing une grce gnrale, we see that a better
term than Jansenistmore apt because less theory-laden -- would be Port-Royal or le
groupe de Port-Royal. Indeed, many grandes dames linked to Port-Royaland, une
illustration clatante, Racine -- cared very little about the Five Propositions. One might say
they represent a social Jansenism -- knots of Augustinian adherents, sympathizers and fellow
travelers. These networks of friends and kin, including habitus of certain salons, were
imbued with the culture of Port-Royal and/or bound to it by personal ties. Their make-up,
extent and importance has been the object of much work in recent years by Jean Mesnard.
There is also, of course, un jansnisme littraire which shares many exemplars with social
Jansenism but goes far beyond those for whom, as in the case of Arnauld, Toute luvre
littraire . . . se repose sur un socle jansnien, et maintes pages soutiennnent la pense
dAugustin sur les Propositions incrimines (p. 73). It will include Fnelon, qui a
polmiqu contre les ides de Jansnius; La Rochefoucauld, qui nourri de La Cit de Dieu,
borde dbluissantes variations sur la corruption de lhomme dchu et sur lamour de soi;
Madame de Sevign, toute jansnienne de cur . . . [qui] prend notre pre saint Augustin
la lettre et sans biaiser; and Madame de Lafayette, whose vision of the amorous passions is
as imbued with Augustinian pessimism as are the pages of La Rochefoucauld (p. 74).
Prvost, Hobbes, Baudelaire, Machiavelli, Mandeville, Mauriac, Montherlant, Gide and
Green are only some of their successors.
5 This striking formulation of Augustines view is by Prosper of Aquitaine (p. 59 n.20; cf. 142-3).
- 135 -
Indeed, one might argue that the Augustinian point of view, taken in a large sense,
though it may wax and wane is almost certain to resist eclipse. It can be seen as the
manifestation of a fundamental element in the human perception of self and world: a sense
of helplessness before what seems the irresistible power of each. Hence the deep longing for
an asylum of stability amidst linconstance noire of a world and self undergoing inexorable
dissolution. (Whence the demand, reflected crisply in the Provinciales, that the times
conform themselves to a Faith too hard for the teeth of Cronos.) Hence linquitude. For if
to attain self-knowledge involves the realization that only Abiding Good can fully satisfy the
deepest longings of the human heart, it also involves the fear, and often the realization, that
our self, if left to itself, is not fully able to resist the seductions of evil. (Whence the necessity
of an irresistible grace, la grce efficace.) This Augustinian realization can underlie even
resistance to Augustinianism. For it can give birth to despair of ever persevering in a Right
that is more than a mere alright, of being Good rather than merely good enough. [V]ous ne
trouverez plus trange quils [les Jsuites] soutiennent que tous les hommes ont toujours
assez de grce pour vivre dans la pit de la manire quils lentendent. Comme leur morale
est toute paenne, la nature suffit pour lobserver.6
The ground of this sense of helplessness? A considrer les cinq millnaires accessibles
historiquement de laventure humaine, on est frapp par la ralit dun ample basculement
culturel: longtemps dmunie devant la nature et les vnements sociaux, lhumanit sest
aisment soumise limpitoyable ordre des choses. [] Le christianisme ancien, tout en
insistant, avec Origne, sur le libre arbitre, a respir ce fatalisme. Il a flott, il a hsit dans les
formulations de sa vision du monde. True, Cest partir de la Renaissance que sest
affirm le sentiment des pouvoirs de lhomme (p. 76). But though this development has
meant struggle and setback for Augustinianism, it has not sapped its force and fascination.
To this fact Professor Selliers work bears eloquent and far from lonely witness. If the Faith
is founded on the stone that the builders rejected, much of early modern and, indeed,
contemporary consciousness is reached by a path that the Church chose not to travel to the
end.
Charles M. Natoli
St. John Fisher College
Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman. By John R. Muether.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishers, 2008; 288 pp., $24.99.
According to the rather elusive Socrates, the moral end of all cognitive speculation is to
know ones self. His method, however, was a bit narrow in that deep soul searching was the
responsibility of the individual and no one else. Yet coming to a better knowledge of the self
may be aided by the perspective of another. This is where biography becomes vitally
important.
Along with J. Gresham Machen, a principal figure in the modernist-fundamentalist
controversy of the early twentieth century, Cornelius Van Til must be ranked among the
6 Provinciales V, p. 78, d. Cognet and Ferreyrolles (Classiques Garnier, 1992).
- 136 -
handful of individuals who, as a founding faculty member of Westminster Theological

Seminary and leading architect of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, indefatigably worked
to preserve a truly confessional Christianity. In his latest book, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed
Apologist and Churchman, John Muether, Associate Professor of Theological Bibliography
and Research at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando), has offered the most complete
biography of this leading philosopher, theologian, and churchman to date. No stranger to
the history of reformed Presbyterianism, having recently co-authored with D. G. Hart
Seeking a Better Country, a history of American Presbyterianism, Muethers latest biography
is part of the American Reformed Biography series published by P&R a co-edited by Sean
Michael Lucas and Darryl Hart. Works in the series have included Lucass Robert Lewis
Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life and Harts John Williamson Nevin: High Church
Calvinist.
Using a variety of sources, from personal correspondences to General Assembly records,
in constructing eight well written chapters, Muether begins by presenting some of the
formative elements of Van Tils life: his Dutch separatist (afscheiding) and neo-Calvinist
roots; his bridging the Dutch Reformed world with that of American Presbyterianism; his
scholarly acumen at Princeton; and his role in the start of both a seminary and a new
denomination. Muether coherently organizes these elements in such a way as to show that a
proper understanding of Van Tils theological commitments cannot be divorced from his
ecclesiology (15). Directly challenging what many have come to recognize as Van Tils
ivory tower apologetic methodology, Muether offers a glimpse of a committed churchman
and erudite apologist who in life pursued faithful submission to a covenant keeping God
(16-17). In truth, he writes, Reformed apologetics drove [Van Til] to the pulpits of the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church, to General Assembly study committees, to hospital beds,
and even to New York City street corners (17). Van Tils apologetic, in other words, was
closer to the pews than at the highest reach of the church steeple.
Much of the book revolves around the array of individuals who contributed to the
development of Van Tils thought, including Abraham Kuyper, whose notion of the
antithesis played a significant role in presuppositional apologetics, Geerhardus Vos, who
introduced the importance of the redemptive historical method for biblical exegesis, Herman
Dooyeweerds idea of the inescapably religious ground motive of all human thought, and
perhaps most importantly the theological commitments of J. Gresham Machen. His
attraction to these towering intellectuals rested on the ways in which they stressed the
centrality of a biblical Calvinistic framework in countering the fallacious wisdom of the
fallen world.
The maturation of Van Tils thoughtworked out with both Westminster Theological
Seminary and the Presbyterian Church of American (later the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church) in mindalso came through controversy. Two leading issues had a tremendous
impact on the young scholar. First, the identity of the OPC and Van Tils status as a
seminary professor was forged by the debates surrounding the ordination of Gordon H.
Clark (98). Van Til was at the forefront of the battle. Clark seemed to come dangerously
close to collapsing the distinction between the mind of God and the mind of man. The
- 137 -
Clark-Van Til debacle, dismissed by some as an expedient misunderstanding, divided

presbyters and thrust Van Til into theological warfare for the remainder of his life.
A second more threatening issue centered on the growing influence, especially in
America, of Karl Barth, a leading figure in the neo-orthodox movement and one of the most
prolific writers in the history of Christian thought. Van Tils opposition to Barthianism
shared an affinity with Machens rhetoric in Christianity and Liberalism. Indeed, the latters
apologetic flowered from the central feature of Machens conviction (69). The essential
challenges to confessional Christianity advanced by Barth included his relegation of the
absolute authority of scripture, the elevation of the existential spiritual crisis of the
individual, and the rejection of the historicity of the messiahs life and work. Van Til
identified Barth as an enemy and not a friend (121). In the same way that Machen refused
to recognize the liberalism within the PCUSA as orthodox, so too Van Til rejected the
theology of Barth, whose work captured the mind of Princeton, as anything but Christian.
And unlike the unfortunate falling out with Clark, Van Tils sustained polemic against
Barth lasted over three decades (121).
Such influences, both positive and negative, were finally codified in his 1955 publication,
Defense of the Faith, the first lengthy exposition of his apologetics for a general readership,
according to Muether. Inspired by Machen, Van Til grew increasingly unsettled by how the
inconsistencies of traditional apologetics (viz., its failure to develop a method for defending
the faith that was in line with the churchs confessional heritage) and also American
evangelicalism served to undermine the Reformed faith. Only a biblically faithful theology
one not restricted to a simplistic five-point Calvinismwould guard against the loose
evangelicalism seeping into the church and the humanistic theology threatening the training
of young men for the ministry. Van Til pressed this issue in both the classroom and the
pulpit. Pushing the without excuse dictum offered by Paul in his letter to the Romans, Van
Til encouraged fellow Christians not to shirk their responsibility in exposing what
unbelievers in actuality presupposednamely, the Creator and his created order. This was
the heart of what became known as presuppositionalism: the one who rejected the Triune
God could only do so after presupposing that same God, his word, and his work. But Van
Tils method spoke also to Christians. Believers regularly needed to be reminded of the
limitations of their own rationality. Human knowledge was analogical, not identical, with
Gods knowledge. Furthermore, the relationship between the creature and the Creator was
one not of pure reason, but of covenant faithfulness. This was the source of his
disagreement with Gordon Clark and evidentialist apologists, who relied too heavily on the
neutrality of reason as the starting point to get to God. Maintaining such an epistemological
distinction was consistent with the ontological gulf between God and humanity.
Studying the life of such a figure as Van Til helps us to appreciate the complexities of his
thought. Personalization often mitigates intellectual abstractions. Van Tils somewhat
stubborn methodology continues to stand as a two-edged sword against unbelief and the
inconsistencies of traditional apologetics. And as intimidating as he wasand continues to
behis concentration on the defense of the faith has contributed to the spiritual journey of
numerous Christians within the reformed community. But the many who have been
influenced by Van Til over the years have not always read him the same way. It would have
- 138 -
been helpful for the author to discuss the varying differences among so-called Van Tillians.
Was there something in his system that associated Van Til with theonomists or the
theologically misguided teachings of Norm Shepherd? How have these camps diverged to
such virulent extremes? Muether locates himself in the camp of the amillennial and
redemptive-historical camp of Van Tillians, which is quite distinct from Van Tils chief
expositors, Greg Bahnsen and even, in a different way, John Frame. Im not sure the issues
dividing these groups have been fully satisfied.
Given the multiple and contradictory uses of such a thinkers method, the question
remains as to whether we are any closer to understanding the thought of Cornelius Van Til.
This reviewer questions whether or not scholars like Frame, Bahnsen, and now Muether
have disentangled the complications of Van Tils all-or-nothing epistemology. Such
difficulties emerged from his years of difficulty reconciling the idea of common grace with
his presuppositional method, which, Muether writes, subjected him to ruthless caricature
that bordered on mockery (166). While I do not wish to descend into mockery, I will say
that it does hint at a problem, especially when considering Van Tils distinction between the
metaphysical affinity of believers and unbelievers with their stark epistemological
differences. For Van Til, the unbeliever cannot truly know that 2 + 2 = 4, because he cannot
provide a justification from within his own unbelieving framework. The question is,
however, does the unbeliever need to justify his belief in the ultimate sense in order for him
to possess knowledge? Do we have to justify every belief claim before we can say that we
have knowledge? Can the unbeliever trulyhowever redundantly you want to use truly
know that 2 + 2 = 4.
What is more, such a belief is justifiedand presupposed by the unbelieverby way of
the fact that God himself created it to be so. This, in fact, is all that the believer needs to
demonstrate. The unbeliever can have knowledge and his knowledge isand must bethe
same as that of believers knowledge. The latter is made in the image of God and has no
option to use the mind his creator has given him. But the reason why the unbeliever rejects
this is not because his mind is functioning improperly, but because he suppresses it in
unrighteousness. There is no doubt that knowledge is wrapped up in morality, but there is
bridge spanning the two. They are not inextricable. For instance, the reformed believer that
loves God and his neighbor is aligned morally, but that same believer that rejects the
historical fact that slavery played the central role in the Civil War is wrong on the knowledge
end of the spectrum.
A further problem related to Van Tils epistemology brings us back to the influence of
Immanuel Kant. For Van Til, a leading reason why Barths theology lacked consistency with
confessional Protestant thought stemmed from the fact that its basic structure was Kantian.
Acknowledgement of this, however, should not exonerate Van Til, for his own apologetic
structure also shared an affinity with Kant. In the same way that humans presuppose the
non-empirical cognitive categories in the structure of the mind to awaken empirical
experience, so unbelievers presuppose not only the structure of their being as image bearers
of God but also presuppose the work of the Creator even as they suppress him in
unrighteousness. Articulating Van Tils philosophical influences and the theology of his
- 139 -
enemies (e.g., Barth) may have required a bit more discussion. Presenting a fair view of
Kantianism, for instance, is no easy task.
Such observations in no way undermine the nuanced argument presented by Muether,
showing himself, once again, to be capable scholar. Van Tils methodology may have been
abstract, even incoherent, to many, but Muether shows us someone whose work was done
not for the praise of men but for the building up of the faith, which could only be done
within the borders of the institutional church.
Ryan McIlhenny
Providence Christian College
The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Trinity, Christology, and Liturgical
Theology. By Bryan Spinks (ed). Collegeville, MN: Pueblo Books, 2008; 378 pp.,
$49.95
This volume publishes the papers presented at a conference convened during February
2005 on christology and trinitarian theology in liturgical worship and prayer hosted by the
Yale Institute of Sacred Music. The title is a deliberate allusion to Josef Jungmanns
influential classic by the same name. Not every essay is directly concerned with Jungmanns
work, however. Rather, these contributors take their orientation from Jungmann by
examining the relationship between christology and prayer. The result is a substantial,
invaluable collection of diverse studies on the ways in which worship and prayer are
informed by and/or inform christology.
After the editors introduction, which focuses primarily on pointing out a few
inaccuracies in Jungmanns work, the volumes fifteen essays are apportioned into three
parts. The essayists represent several Christian traditions. All treat their topic in a generally
historical way; the volume lacks constructive proposals and tends to ignore or keep implicit
questions about what patterns are normative or more appropriate.
Part I explores the NT and several early worship traditions. Larry Hurtado distills his
previously published research on the binatarian shape of earliest Christian devotion. Paul
Bradshaw surveys early Christian prayer and concludes that prayers were addressed to each
member of the Godhead directly. Robert Taft examines the christology of the Byzantine
office. His essay is followed by Baby Vargheses on prayers offered to Christ in the west
Syrian tradition, Gabriele Winklers on the christology and authorship of Basils anaphora,
and Peter Jefferys insightful correction of Jungmanns account of the origin and function of
the Kyrie.
Part II, Piety, Devotion, and Song, has a bit more of a sociological feel to it, as most
authors are concerned to consider the meaning of liturgical formulae for spirituality and
worship experience. It begins with Michael Findikyans paper on the christology of early
Armenian liturgical commentaries. Kenneth Stevenson then explores Augustines, Maximus
the Confessors, Lancelot Andrews, and Karl Barths interpretations of the christology of
the Lords Prayer. Maxwell Johnson in his essay attempts to redress the assumption that
Theotokos was a purely christological concern, arguing that the title grew out of Marian
devotion before the Council of Ephesus that was part of the development of the larger cult
- 140 -
of martyrs and saints. Liturgical piety and trinitarian worship in the Reformed tradition is
explained by John Witvliet. Stephen Marini reflects on the Trinity and christology manifest
in Isaac Watts communion hymns.
The final part focuses specifically on contemporary Protestant worship. It contains essays
on the christology of recent Protestant hymnals (Karen Tucker), the Trinity in the most
frequently sung worship songs (Lester Ruth), and feminist liturgical trinities (Kathryn
Greene-McCreight).
The consistently high quality of the research makes this volume a standard resource. The
essays are mostly technical, and therefore their primary audience is scholars. But patient
pastors, worship leaders, and liturgists will find much that can enrich their current practice
and understanding. Readers come away with knowledge of several different traditions and
historical precedents, and, within that, a sense for how the christology-liturgy relationship
can be construed and why. In all, a particularly fertile volume that will prove beneficial for
scholar and practitioner alike.
James R. A. Merrick
University of Aberdeen
Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology. By Edwin
Christiaan van Driel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008; viii + 194 pp.,
$74.00
In less than 200 pages Van Driel (newly appointed Associate Professor of Theology,
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) defines and examines a theologumenon largely out of
favor todaythat of the Primacy of Christ, or as van Driel calls it, a supralapsarian
Christology. First articulated by Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075-1129), this argument is predicated
on the absolute election of Jesus Christ. Rupert discussed the issue within the context of a
counterfactual formulation: would the Son of God have become human or not even if sin
had not intervened? For advocates of the Primacy of Christ, the answer is an assured yes.
Following Rupert the great medieval thinkers took up this hypothetical question and
interrogated it with considerable skill and attention. The result was the well-known
divergence and then disagreement between the Franciscans and the Dominicans. For the
Franciscans, John Duns Scotus advocated the Primacy of Christ and developed a rigorous
biblical, theological, and philosophical defense of this position. For the Dominicans,
Thomas Aquinas advocated the opposite, arguing that the incarnation is due to the fall of
humanity into sin, therefore, while we must remain cautious, without human sin there would
be no need for an incarnation of the Son of God.
While this issue received considerable attention by medieval theologians it did not attract
the attention of the Reformers or many of their heirs. Speculative hypotheses about possible
world semantics and counterfactuals were considered a luxury by those fighting for their
faith and their lives on many occasions. More recently, due to various factors, theologians
today are still adverse to speculative theology. This is, in my opinion a pity for several
reasons, most important of which is the fact that the doctrine of the Primacy of Christ is not
primarily about counterfactuals or hypotheticals, but is, rather, about the absolute
- 141 -
predestination of Christ and the implications this has for Christology, soteriology and the
other theological loci. And this is where the work of van Driel proves to be so useful.
In Incarnation Anyway van Driel avoids all appeals to speculative theology and thus cut
through the criticism of many over the place of hypothetical philosophy. This is a masterful
methodological move as it allows the issue of the Primacy or otherwise of Christ to
dominate the discussion, not hypothetical speculation. Second, this move allows the great
advocates of the Primacy of Christ to receive a fair hearing and brings their biblical-
theological arguments and insights to the fore, rather than their philosophical logic.
According to van Driel supralapsarian Christology and its opposite, infralapsarian
Christology, stand for family names or two families of ideas. Infralapsarians agree that
God had to become human in order to take care of the sin problem, but they disagree on the
reasons why. Likewise, supralapsarians agree that the incarnation is not contingent upon
human sin, but they differ widely on the reasons why (p. 5). Van Driels work examines three
examplars of recent supralapsarians: Friedrich Schleiermacher, Isaak Dorner, and Karl Barth,
before offering three brief chapters, one of which offers his own proposal based on his
research.
Schleiermacher is, according to van Driel, the first major supralapsarian theologian since
the Middle Ages (p. 9) and constructs his supralapsarian Christology within an ontological
framework of redemption in which the notion of absolute dependence plays a crucial role.
Van Driel presents Schleiermachers ordo salutis as follows: 1) there is one divine decree, 2)
to impart the divine essence to humanity, 3) one person is elected with whom God unites his
essence to, 4) redemption is the instrument to impart the divine essence, 5) sin is ordained to
make humanity receptive to redemption, and 6) humans are created so as to fall. The
ontological foundations for this ordo are based on two assertions of omnipotence that van
Driel labels omnipotence I and omnipotence II. Omnipotence I involves a qualified notion
of human freedom and omnipotence II states that God cannot do otherwise than what he
does (i.e. no counterfactuals or middle knowledge is possible).
Van Driel notes several major fault lines or criticisms of Schleiermachers
supralapsarian Christology, notably the unacceptable felix culpa argument. Schleiermacher
expounds a nonreciprocal foundation for the single divine decree which encompasses all
history. If God does not respond to human actions, the incarnation cannot be interpreted as
a divine answer to the human problem of sin. Thus sin must be ordained by God and the
incarnation is seen as accidental to human nature as human sin takes logical priority over
divine incarnation. On the basis of this criticism and others van Driel rejects
Schleiermachers supralapsarian Christology.
The next supralapsarian proposal examined is that of Isaak Dorner who constructs his
theology on the basis of creation. From this basis he develops an ethical ontology by which
God the ethical is necessary. God is lovethe amor amoriswho creates human creatures
to share in this love. The incarnation is thus the perfection of revelation; it establishes an
absolute religion, and an ethical relationship. Thus, the incarnation, as the absolute
revelation of God, is necessitated by the need for an absolute religion (p. 48). One curious
- 142 -
conclusion drawn from Dorner is that even in a world without sin, Christ would have come
twice: one in incarnation and a second time in the Parousia!
The criticism of Dorners supralapsarian Christology that van Driel notes is his diverging
interpretations of the incarnation which have the net result that Dorner is unable to
consistently answer several fundamental questions. The first question is this: is the God-
human relationship primarily ontological or interpersonal? (p. 56). This becomes a key
question for van Driel which I will discuss further below. On van Driels reading, Dorner
inconsistently oscillates between these two positions making his proposal incoherent. A
second critical question is this: how does the incarnation relate to Gods ultimate goal? (p.
58). That is, is the incarnation a means or an end? Once again van Driel considers Dorners
theology as inconsistent, he wants to say the incarnation is interpersonal and is the end but
his three fundamental arguments for supralapsarian Christology do not consistently support
such conclusions. The ultimate criticism van Driel has of Dorners position is that he is
ambiguous on the ultimate motivation behind the incarnation because he constructs his
theology on the basis of creation rather than the consummation.
The third and final advocate of a supralapsarian Christology examined by van Driel is
Karl Barth, and two chapters are devoted to explicating his argument. Unlike Schleiermacher
who based his supralapsarianism on redemption, and Dorner who based it on creation,
Barth basis his on the eternal election of Jesus Christ which is in turn based on the
consummation. Barths supralapsarianism is thus founded on the election of Jesus Christ
who is the subject and the object of election. This makes Jesus election the first divine
decree and thus the primacy of Christ is made explicit. Humans are elected in Christ and
thus are contingent upon Christ the electing God.
In the second chapter devoted to Barth, Chapter 5, van Driel offers an exegesis of
Barths doctrine of Christ as the subject of election and of Barths commitment to
creational entropy. In dealing with Jesus as the subject of election van Driel canvasses four
ways to interpret Barths notion of the eternal being of Christ: 1) as pre-emption of the
temporal (Brunner and Berkouwer), 2) as reflection of the temporal (Colwell), 3) as divine
self-constitution (McCormack), and 4) as divine self-determinationvan Driels own
interpretation. The examination of the third view is the most extensive and continues a lively
dialogue between van Driel and Bruce McCormack over this issue. While van Driel believes
McCormacks view may not be entirely without grounds, he finds it finally incoherent.
The criticism van Driel has of Barths work is that it is too ontological. In eternity past
humanity is ontologically incorporated into Christs eternal election and in eternity future
humanity ceases to exist except as a memory of a lived life in the mind of Christ. Much of
this is predicated on the basis of creational entropy by which creation in and by itself lapses
into evil by ontological necessity. Van Driels point is that while this may be consistent to the
internal logic of Barths dogmatics, it is by no means self evident that this is consistent with
Scripture or Tradition.
Chapter 6 is a summary of the conceptual schemes of the three supralapsarian thinkers in
which van Driel offers additional arguments and critiques of their positions and builds a case
for constructing a supralapsarian Christology on the basis of consummation or eschatology
- 143 -
rather than upon creation or redemption. In Chapter 7 van Driel offers a brief proposal of
his own in which he strongly argues, consistent with Scripture, for an embodied human
existence in the eschaton which he links with the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. This
eschatological life is the telos of creation and thus explains in part the Primacy of Christ: If
Easter mornings implications are fully acknowledged, we need to understand the gift given
in Christ as supralapsarian (p. 149).
Three arguments constitute van Driels rationale for a supralapsarian Christology. First,
the eschaton is not the restoration of the proton. In the eschaton there is a superabundance,
a rich intimacy with God that the proton did not know, In Christ we gain more than we
lost in Adam (p. 151). This superabundance involves a transformation of human existence
into the form of the resurrected Christ, and an increase in the experience of divine intimacy
as humans see God face to face in the face of Jesus Christ. As a summary van Driel states:
In other words: the eschatological superabundance is a gain in Christ. The
theological question pressed by the supralapsarian therefore is this: I the
superabundance o the eschaton is thus so intimately bound up with the
person of Christ, can Christ be contingent upon sin? Would this not make
the eschaton itself contingent upon sin? (p. 152).
A second argument is an extension of the first and involves Christs role in the visio Dei.
If the visio Dei is sensory and intellectual, and van Driel thinks it is, then the eschatological
goal of humanity in the beatific vision is only possible if God makes himself present in
bodily form, that is, the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.
The final argument mustered by van Driel is one basic to his proposal and concerns
divine friendship. Friendship, divine and human, is motivated by love. When in the Old
Testament God calls his people his friends (Abraham, Moses, etc) and in the New
Testament Jesus addresses his disciples as friends, this defines these relationships as
motivated not only by human sin and need for reconciliation, but by a deeper, preordinate
sense of love (p. 160). The logic of friendship is then applied to the supralapsarian
Christology van Driel recommends. The death of Jesus is motivated by friendship; the
friendship is not motivated by death. If the incarnation only happened as a function of
Gods reconciling action, there would be no need for a continued bodily existence of Christ
after crucifixion and death.
In the Epilogue van Driel contrasts his proposal with alternate suggestions and again
comes back to the issue, raised on several occasions, as to the recipient of the gift of the
incarnationhuman nature or human persons. Van Driel makes much of the distinction
between the incarnation as primarily ontological or interpersonal. The two, he argues, result
in very different supralapsarian christologies. If the incarnation is to establish an ontological
relationship then by assuming a human nature, God is able to change and complete the
ontological structure of reality (p. 57). In this schema the incarnation is given to human
nature: by assuming human nature, God is able to change the ontological status of
humanity from the inside out (p. 139). This presupposes that in the incarnation God
assumes a human nature like ours, a nature that God will now change for the better. This is
premised on the unity of human nature. Van Driel rejects this position mainly due to the fact
- 144 -
that it presupposes some common human nature (Platonic?) and it does not respect the
over-againstness between the Word made flesh and our human natures. It has the
relationship between the incarnate One and other human beings governed by the logic of
assumption, but assumption is a category which implies that there is no over-againstness
between the assumer and the assumed (p. 166).
If the incarnation is to establish an interpersonal relationship of mutual love and
commitment, then God becomes incarnate to establish a kingdom of love, in the form of a
suitor, pursuing an answer of his beloved (p. 57). Under this schema the incarnation is a gift
given to human persons: by assuming a human nature, God makes Godself available for
interpersonal interaction, from one human being to the other (p. 139). This assumes that in
the incarnation God takes up a human nature like ours, a nature that allows God to be
present to us in human form. This is premised on the similarity of individual human natures.
Van Driel rejects the first position in favor of the second. For these reasons and more van
Driel argues for the superior logic and faithfulness to Scripture of supralapsarian Christology
over all versions of infralapsarian Christology.
Incarnation Anyway concludes with a modest (4 page) bibliographical appendix on the
genealogy of supralapsarianism in which thinkers from Rupert of Deutz to Robert Jenson
and Hans Kng are mentioned. This is a helpful little bibliography and allows the interested
reader to follow up on particular thinkers and representative positions should they wish to
do so. The bibliography is by no means exhaustive however, and does not clearly show just
how many thinkers in the tradition have subscribed to some form of supralapsarian
Christology. Consulting a work such as J. Carol, Why Jesus Christ: Thomistic, Scotistic and
Conciliatory Perspectives (Manassas, VI.: Trinity Communications, 1986), would
significantly help the interested reader.
Incarnation Anyway is a well written, concise introduction to supralapsarian Christology
and offers one of the very few modern treatments of the subject and for this it fills a crucial
lacuna in the literature. As one who has published on this doctrine I am in total agreement
with van Driel in his central arguments against all versions of infralapsarian Christology and
support his contention that supralapsarian Christology is more faithful to Scripture and the
logic contained therein. As previously mentioned, van Driels decision to avoid the
speculative theology which has tended to dominate aspects of this discussion was successful
and as such the doctrine may have wider appeal than attempts which adopt modal logic or
counterfactuals. This is a much needed work of constructive theology and will be a welcome
addition to many classes on Christology and soteriology.
There some odd moves in this work, however, which deserve mention. The first
observation is simply a comment on terminology. What van Driel terms supralapsarian
Christology has traditionally been labeled the doctrine of the Primacy of Christ, however,
nowhere in this volume does that term appear, nor does van Driel show an awareness of
this. It would have been of use to others to have this pointed out in the book should they
wish to research in this area themselves.
A second observation concerns the decision to remove all appeals to counterfactuals or
modal logicthe hypothetical questions raised so often in the Tradition. While as I noted
- 145 -
earlier this may appeal to many today I wish to push back a little as someone who finds
modal logic useful in speculative theology as long as it serves the ultimate purpose of
articulating a constructive theology which is faithful to Scripture and the Tradition. In this
regard I find the medieval debates over the primacy of Christ by Scotus and Aquinas in
particular continue to be fruitful areas of reflection.
A further observation concerns van Driels distinction between the incarnation
understood as a gift to human nature or a gift to human persons. While this is a useful
distinction to make and van Driel applies it well to the authors he examines, the details of
both positions require further description and analysis for it to be clear what each position
actually involves. According to van Driel these are mutually contradictory position so that
one cannot logically adopt and apply both in a doctrine of the Primacy of Christ. Dorner and
Barth respectively are critiqued for attempting to do this very thing without success.
However, that these two figures fail to keep both senses of the gift of the incarnation in
logical harmony should not imply they cant be harmonized. Reformed theology, with its
covenant theology and doctrine of the federal headship of Adam and Christ, for instance,
could arguably hold both in harmony in order to emphasize the vicarious life and death of
Christ for all humanity (gift to human nature) as well as endorse a theology of the duplex
gratia whereby human persons are justified and sanctified, and will one day be glorified to
participate in the divine life of love (gift to human persons).
A final observation is really a compliment: the constructive proposal van Driel offers
amounts to one small chapter of 17 pages and this was simply not enough. Having whetted
our appetites with his critique of Schleiermacher, Dorner, and Barth, I expected van Driel to
present an extended alternative proposal of his own, not simply a short prcis of such.
Perhaps OUP placed limitations on the length of the text (a common and constraining
complaint against academic publishers today), or perhaps van Driel is preparing such a work
for a subsequent volume. One hopes the latter is the case and I for one look forward very
much to reading it.
Myk Habets
Carey Baptist College
Fire in the Dark: Essays on Pascals Penses and Provinciales. By Charles M.
Natoli. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2005; ix+145 pp., $ 75.00.
The central fact about the Christian religion by which this book is animatedand rightly
so for it surely animated Pascalis the hiddenness of God. Since others (Platt and Baker7)
have noted the historical and literary, even linguistic merits of the bookthough I cannot
help but commend his use of AristotleI will focus on the antidote of mystery and
hiddenness: revelation. Since Pascals is primarily a work of natural theology, the revelation
in question is the uncovering of truth for the subject by Reason. Thus I will focus on
Natolis incisive treatment of Pascals notion of Reason as revealed in his concept of proof.
7 Michael Platt, The Review of Metaphysics, 2006; Susan Read Baker, Seventeenth-Century News,
Fall-Winter 2006.
- 146 -
Natolis investigation of this notion, however, begins with a mystery. He notes that in
Pascals discussions of mathematical proof, he exalts geometric proof with its deductions
from self-evident principles. Yet throughout the Pensees Pascal refers as proofs to various
arguments which bear little resemblance to the formal methods of Geometry. The key by
which Natoli unlocks this mystery is the notion of persuasion. For any given proposition,
the question can be asked: Why do you think that? or What makes you think that?
Note the call for a causal explanation, and thus a tacit reference to the notion of
psychological force.
Though Natoli doesnt pose the question in these terms, his analysis suggests the
question: On what grounds could we reject the hearts acceptance of self-evident
principlesupon which the most objective and certain knowledge is foundedwhile
rejecting the hearts judgment on matters theological? In light of this, Pascals statement that
The Heart has its reasons the Reason knows not applies just as much to Geometry as
Theology.
Natoli supports this hermeneutic with ample, careful quotations from the corpus of
Pascals work as well as secondary literature both contemporaneous with Pascal and latter-
day commentators as well. The textual digging, though, does turn up some potential
counter-examples. For example Pascal enjoins us to believe according to reason, rather than
being carried away by fancy or fashion. Yet the latter is more persuasive to the undisciplined
mind. Natoli responds to this by ramifying the theory to include a hierarchy of types. So he
attributes to Pascal the belief that persuasion by reason is more firm than persuasion by
other meansrecalling to the reviewers mind Platos Meno. One worry I have about this
proposal stems from the fact that those carried away by intellectual fashions often believe
they have been persuaded by reason. This seems to put Pascals account of proof back on
par with Descartes (see p. 83) in offering no route to a manifest criterion of truth. This is,
of course, Pascals problem, not Natolis. It could be that Natoli has just revealed that one
of Pascals desiderata is not able to me met.
Having defended his exegesis, Natoli considers two objections to Pascals placement of
Sentiment at the heart of Reason. Like his influential contemporary Descartes, Pascal
intimates that without reference to a good God, there will always remain some residual
doubt attached to the very faculty of sentiment by which we become persuaded of the first
principles of logic and of theology. Faith, being precisely such a God-grasping faculty, surely
cannot be the final guarantor that God is there, the good designer and guarantor of the
veracity of faith.
In response to this Pascalian Circle, Natoli speculates that the best route for Pascal to
take is to see Faith as involving an encounter with the divine which breaks down the barrier
between knower and known. Thus Natoli bequeaths to contemporary theorists motivation
for a significant research project in the epistemology of religion.
So Natolis final taxonomy of Reason according to Pascalhis logology as Natoli puts
itlooks like this. Proofs divide into proof from without and proof from within. The
external modality is what Hume called constant conjunction. Both our regular experiences
and our regular behaviors can lead to conviction. The latter are an important category of
- 147 -
proof for Pascal, since one way it can work is that when one wagers and attends Mass,
participation in the sacramental life of the Church can diminish passions that are obstacles to
belief. One must note hereas Natoli makes clear but less able readers often missis that
this is a perfectly rational process, for ex hypothesi the passions are keeping one from
believing what it is rational to believe. Proof from within can be either discursive or
immediate. If discursive, then it is either (broadly speaking) deductive or inductive. If
immediateemanating from the heartthen the object is either logical or theological, but
in any case epistemological bedrock. Intuition tells us, convincingly, that a thing cannot
both be and not be at the same time in the same sense. The inspiration of faith can tell us,
just as convincingly, that we are contingent beings in a position of total dependence,
wretched non-knowers in an epistemological predicament that divine revelation would be
happy to ameliorate.
As should be clear by now, Natoli takes us through a tour of the linguistic, historical, and
logical lay of the land in that often misty and sometimes scary forest which are the Pascalian
wilds, the written remains of a marvelous mind. We could ask for no more able and
sympathetic a guide, and should be thankful for this extended map.
Trent Dougherty
University of Rochester
The Word in This World: Two Sermons by Karl Barth. By Karl Barth; Kurt
Johanson (ed); Christopher Asprey (trans). Vancouver: Regent College
Publishing, 2007; 66 pp., $7.95.
In this splendid little booklet, two remarkable sermons by Karl Barth appear in English
for the first time. The juxtaposition of these two sermons provides a striking picture of some
of the ways in which Barths preaching changed over the years.
On the one hand, both of these sermons were preached amidst situations of global
catastrophe and crisis. The first was preached in April 1912, just days after the sinking of the
Titanic; and the second was preached in November 1934, two days after the Confessing
Church had taken a public stand against Hitler (and two days later, Barth would be dismissed
from his university post). Both sermons thus take the form of emergency proclamation, of
urgent announcement amidst crisis.
On the other hand, the two sermons are remarkably different. In the first, Barth takes the
sinking of the Titanic itself as his texthe insists that this event is the organ of divine
revelation through which God addresses us withpower and urgency (p. 32). The sermon
is thus entirely immersed within its specific situation; there is (in good liberal fashion) a
presumed identity between divine revelation and the movement of history. This was
precisely the position that Barth would later denounce and repudiate so fiercely in his
commentary on Romans.
Needless to say, by the time of the 1934 sermon, Barths mode of preaching had changed
greatly. Here the contemporary situation is even more urgent and more dangerous than in
April 1912here, the German nation as a whole is steaming towards hidden disaster. But
Barth only alludes to these specificities in passing; his entire sermon, from the first word to
- 148 -
the last, is absorbed by the world of the Bible and by the sovereign command of God.
Hitler, for example, is never named directly, but only alluded to as a mere nothing.
The two sermons thus offer a striking contrast. Indeed, the later Barth looked back on
his Titanic sermon with considerable horrorin his Homiletics (WJKP, 1991), he called it
the monster of a full-scale Titanic sermon! Following Barths lead, William Willimon also
suggests in his introduction that this is a very bad sermon (p. 18), since its text is the
newspaper rather than the Bible. Nevertheless, I think it is possible to say something in
defense of this early (liberal) Barthfor all the theological failings of the Titanic sermon, it is
still an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of preaching. Even if the whole sermon is
structured by the sinking of the ship itself (rather than by any biblical text), Barths
perception of this event has already been filtered through a biblical imaginationso that the
true starting point of this sermon is not merely a historical event, but a biblical reading of
the event.
Barths main argument is that the sinking of the Titanic is the judgment of God: it is
Gods judgment on the crime of capitalism, in which a few individuals compet[e] with
each other at the expense of everyone else in a mad and foolish race for profits (p. 40).
Barth thus sees the sinking of the Titanic not merely as an isolated occurrence, but as an
event wholly conditioned by a larger web of social and economic relationsthe same web of
relations which also structures the lives of the working-class parishioners here in the little
village of Safenwil. For that reason, the judgment of God on the Titanic is connected
urgently and immediatelyto the lives of these parishioners. The theological horizon which
shapes Barths interpretation of the Titanic, in other words, is the same horizon against
which his parishioners must understand their own material struggles.
So while I will be quick to admit that this very liberal sermon on the Titanic is a far cry
from Barths later preaching, I think this sermon also expresses something important about
authentic Christian proclamation. In the sermon, God is addressing these particular people.
And so the preacher must interpret not only the biblical text but also the world itself through
the lens of the gospel.
On one occasion, the Word of God might be proclaimed by making Hitler disappear
anonymously into the world of the Bible as a powerless nothing; on another occasion, the
Word might be proclaimed by speaking directly against the crime of capitalism, and by
summoning the people of God to re-imagine their own material world as the place of Gods
reign. Two very different sermons, butif we listen carefullymight it not be the same
Word that we are hearing?
Benjamin Myers
University of Queensland
God the Holy Trinity: Reflections on Christian Faith and Practice. By Timothy
George (ed). Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006; 175 pp., $20.00
This little volume draws together nine papers originally presented at a Beeson Divinity
School symposium on the Trinity. The papers, edited by Timothy George, represent a wide
range of ecclesial traditions: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, Holiness,
- 149 -
and Presbyterian. The collection aims not at conceptual discussion of trinitarian theology,
but rather at elucidating the relationship between that doctrine and the concrete life of
Christian faith and worship. Thus the crucial question addressed is: How does the doctrine
of the Trinity shape the ways of the Christian life, its worship and prayer, its service and
mission? (p. 13).
In the opening paper, Alister McGrath emphasizes the fundamental mystery of trinitarian
dogma: The doctrine of the Trinity represents a chastened admission that we are unable to
master God (p. 20). McGrath thus wonders whether some contemporary trinitarian
thought has become too speculative and too detached from the witness of Scripture. His
target here is especially social doctrines of the Trinity, which leave one with a sense of
bafflement at how a series of rather ambitious social and communitarian doctrines [can be
deduced] from the mystery of the Trinity (pp. 3132). In contrast, McGrath follows Robert
W. Jenson in arguing that the doctrine of the Trinity identifies and names the Christian
God, so that the doctrine functions as an instrument of theological precision, which forces
us to be explicit about the God under discussion (pp. 3334).
McGraths paper sets the stage for the rest of the collection, since the remaining essays
focus on the significance of the Trinity for the concrete practices and experiences of
Christian faith. Gerald Bray argues that the doctrine of the Trinity did not arise from
philosophical speculation in the early church, but from the realities of Christian spiritual
experience (p. 55); and James Earl Massey offers a fascinating account of the underlying
trinitarianism of the African-American spirituals. Avery Dulles stresses the ecumenical
significance of the concept of the divine processions of the Son and Spirit, while J. I. Packer
gives an account of John Owens Puritan trinitarian piety. Timothy George highlights the
significance of the doctrine of the Trinity for interfaith dialogue between Christianity and
Islam, while Ellen Charry seeks to revive the notion of the divine perfections by emphasizing
their practical and soteriological significance.
The most enjoyable chapter, however, is Frederica Mathewes-Greens reflection on
Rublevs great icon on the Trinity. Mathewes-Green is a popular Eastern Orthodox writer
rather than a theologian; but she offers a beautiful, concise meditation on Rublevs depiction
of the Trinity. As in much iconography, Rublev distort[s] perspective in order to give us a
sensation that the scene is bursting out toward us, with the chalice in the center pressing
itself our way; as the scene rushes towards us, this distorted perspective gives us a sense of
being off-balance in an unfamiliar, powerful world (p. 89). Most significantly, though,
Mathewes-Green observes that none of Rublevs three figures is speaking: The tranquility
of their silence is sufficient (p. 90).
Finally, and fittingly, the volume closes with a deeply moving sermon by Cornelius
Plantinga: From all eternity inside God, inside the mystery of God , the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit make room for each other, envelop each other, call attention to each
other, glorify one another. It is the ceaseless exchange of vitality, the endless expense of
spirit upon spirit in eternal triplicate life. The only competition in glory of this kind is to
outdo one another in love (p. 155).
- 150 -
Benjamin Myers
University of Queensland
Is Christianity Good for the World? By Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.
Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2008; 72 pp., $12.00.
Is Christianity Good for the World? is a book that any Christian can confidently give to a
an atheist friend, or to somebody struggling with their own faith in light of atheism. This is
so for a variety of reasons. First, if one is to look for a winner in the debate, rest assured
that the Christian wins. There is no moment, from a Christian perspective, where the
reader will wince and think, Whoa! Wilson really blew it there! The reasons for this
judgment will become apparent as one reads the rest of this review. Second, and related to
the first, the gospel is clearly presented so that there can be no misunderstanding that
through the cross of Christ alone a person can be reconciled to God. This should give every
Christian pause to rejoice and pray that Hitchens and non-Christian readers would believe
on Christ and be saved. Third, the interchange between the atheist and the Christian is
highly entertaining. Both Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson are brilliant writers who
have a knack for getting to their point using satire, irony, wit and other such literary devices.
Readers who enjoy this kind of exchange will grin their way through most of the book.
Fourth, it is mercifully short and easy to read. Many walk away from university auditoriums
after a debate over the existence of God scratching their heads thinking, What was that all
about? Not so with this book. Coming in at sixty-one pages with wide margins, a student
who is heavy-laden with homework will not have to take too much time away from study to
finish the debate. Technical jargon rarely appears, thus making it accessible to the layperson.
And the entertainment value will keep one from putting it down until every page is turned.
Christopher Hitchens, the atheist, is well known in popular western culture, particularly
in Britain (where he is from) and the United States. This is especially so since the publication
of his recent book God is Not Great where he argues that all forms of religion are essentially
bad for the progress of the human race and society. Hitchens is no stranger to intense
Christianity vs. atheism debatesone only has to think of his regular bouts with Dinesh
DSouza to see that Hitchens is accustomed to pugilism of this sort. Personally, this reviewer
finds Hitchens to be the most dynamic and interesting of the so-called Four Horsemen of
the so-called New Atheism that includes Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard
Dawkins. There is a sense with Hitchens that one could come away from a conversation
over coffee with him actually liking the guy in spite of his blistering, sarcastic attacks on the
Christian faith.
Douglas Wilson, the Christian, is less well known as Hitchens in popular culture, but no
less dynamic. In fact, the Hitchens/Wilson pairing could not have been better. Although he
has not sold as many books as Hitchens, Wilson is a prolific writer who addresses a wide
variety of topics from family, theology, history, education, worship and philosophy. He is the
pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, the founder of the Association for Classical
Christian Schools, a key leader in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and
editor of Credenda/Agenda a webzine and print magazine devoted to Reformed theology.
Wilson is no backwoods fundamentalist when it comes to understanding and appropriating
culture (note the reference to Wodehouse on page 19), nor is he one who thoughtlessly
- 151 -
drinks it in without regard to his Christian faith. A staunch Calvinist, Wilson appropriates
the method of apologetics founded by Cornelius Van Til and honed by Greg Bahnsen in
essentially proving that Hitchens and the atheism that he represents renders the world
unintelligible. Like Hitchens, Wilson comes across as a likable guy. Both of their
personalities endear the reader making the book personable and personal.
The nature of this debate circles around morality. This is seen in the interrogative
proposition under dispute: Is Christianity good for the world? The morality of Christianity
is a relevant point of discussion because that is one of the dominant themes of Hitchens
anti-Christian writings. In fact, Hitchens argues in his introduction, Although Christianity is
often credited (or credits itself) with spreading moral precepts such as Love thy neighbor, I
know of no evidence that such precepts derive from Christianity (15). He goes on to say,
Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical,
immoral (16). In fact, [I]f Christianity was going to save us by its teachings, it would have
had to perform better by now (17). Hitchens believes that the first step Christianity needs
to make is to humbly admit that it does not stand on moral high ground and that religion is
simply man-made (18). What is interesting is that Hitchens seems to inadvertently give up
the ghost early on: I cannot, of course, prove that there is no supervising deity who
invigilates my every moment and who will pursue me even after I am deadBut nor has any
theologian ever demonstrated the contrary (18). It is the opinion of this reviewer that at
least one has: Douglas Wilson, who like many other theologians argues that the contrary is
impossible.
The main thrust of Wilsons response to Hitchens is, Given atheism who cares? How,
from an atheistic perspective, can the words ought or should have meaning? What standard
does Hitchens (or any atheist for that matter) appeal to in order to make sense of morality
(or anything else)? In his introduction Wilson writes, My argument does not focus so much
as a challenge to what Christopher Hitchens wants to reject (God) as what he still desires to
keep regardless. He has chopped down the tree and yet still wants the fruit to be there at
harvest (12-13). Wilson points out that Hitchens essentially removes the foundation for
ethical value and then still wants to make moral pronouncements. Without the objective
standard of the biblical worldview, Hitchens value statements are arbitrary and irrational. In
response to Hitchens discussion of the genocides of the Old Testament, Wilson says,
Should the propagators of these horrors have cared? There is no God, right? Because
there is no God, this means thatyou knowgenocides just happen, like earthquakes and
eclipses. It is all matter in motion, and these things happen (21). The rest of the book keeps
coming back to this main pointsomething that Hitchens either misses or ignores. Wilson
shows that Hitchens belief that ethics comes from human solidarity (29), that it is innate
(38, 46) and that it evolved (53) is essentially a non-answer. What standard does human
solidarity appeal to in order for ethical laws to be universal or how is innate law authoritative
(see pages 35, 42, 49, 57-58)? For Hitchens to answer the question, Is Christianity good for
the world? in the negative, he has to essentially affirm what he denies. In other words, he
has to presuppose the existence of God in order to deny the existence of God. As the
conversation progresses Wilson becomes like a broken record constantly asking Hitchens to
give an account for morality, sentence structure, respect for the individual and the like. For
as good a writer that Hitchens is, it is surprising that he is not as good a reader. One
- 152 -
wonders whether Wilson was amused by this or found it terribly frustrating; judging from
the following quote, he probably found it amusing:
After this many installments, I now feel comfortable in asserting that I have posed this
question to you from every point of the compass and have not yet received anything that
approaches the semblance of an answer. On this question I am tempted to quote Wyatt Earp
from the film TombstoneYou gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?but
I think Ill pass (49).
Hitchens thinks that Wilson evades the challenges brought to the Christian faith.
However, even a cursory read reveals that it is Hitchens who evades the challenges brought
to his atheistic faith. Wilson asks, When another atheist makes different ethical choices than
you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all
atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and
what book did it come from? (27-28).
Throughout the argument Wilson argues negatively that atheism cannot make sense of
the world, let alone argue that anything can be considered good for it. But he also posits
his argument positively: The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the
fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins,
which atheism cannot provide either (28). The need for forgiveness of sins is demonstrated
by Hitchens evasion of Wilsons point, which is ultimately an evasion of God (Rom. 1:21).
Wilson calls for intellectual repentance (27), which can only occur if one believes the
gospel. Poignantly, Wilson explains the nature of the gospel and applies it specifically to the
life of Hitchens in the last two pages of the book.
Is Christianity Good for the World? is an excellent book. It is a delight to read and it
does the job of demonstrating that the atheistic worldview, consistently held, destroys
ethicsalong with knowledge and reality. Buy this book in mass quantities and give copies
to your friends, Christian or not. It will serve to build the faith of the believer, and by Gods
grace will promote faith in the non-believer.
Ian Clary
DiscerningReader.com
Becoming Conversant With The Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and
Its Implications. By D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008; 256 pp.,
$14.99.
While much has been written about the Emerging Church (henceforth known as EC),
D.A. Carson is, as far as I know, the first person to write a book-length treatment evaluating
and leveling critiques at the movement. At any rate he is certainly the most widely-respected.
And yes, I know the EC leaders prefer to call it a conversation, but since Carson does not
shy from calling it a movement, nor will I. In Becoming Conversant with the Emerging
Church, subtitled Understanding a Movement and its Implications, Carson seeks to
introduce the movement, assess it, and address several of the most glaring weaknesses. There
are few men who are better suited to this task. Carson is a scholar and is known for his
- 153 -
conservative, biblical theology as much as for his sound research and presentation skills. All
of those admirable attributes are displayed throughout this book.
In the preface Carson writes, Whenever a Christian movement comes along that
presents itself as reformist, it should not be summarily dismissed. Even if one ultimately
decides that the movement embraces a number of worrying weaknesses, it may also have
some important things to say that the rest of the Christian world needs to hear. So I have
tried to listen respectfully and carefully; I hope and pray that the leaders of this movement
will similarly listen to what I have to say (page 10). That spirit of love and charity pervades
the book.
The book follows a logical formatintroduction, admiration, criticism. The first chapter,
The Emerging Church Profile, is an uncritical summary of the Emerging Church. Carson
arrives at three conclusions. First, the EC must be evaluated as to its reading of
contemporary culture. Second, the EC needs to be evaluated as to its beliefs regarding
Scripture. Third, the ECs proposals for moving forward in this postmodern culture need to
be examined.
The second chapter examines the strengths of the Emerging Church. Carson praises four
aspects of the EC. First, they are adept at reading the times and are able to think through the
implications for our witness, our grasp of theology and our self-understanding. Second, they
value authenticity. Third, they recognize the social location of the church, and know that the
church is within a cultural context and cannot be removed from it. Fourth, they place high
value on evangelism. Fifth, that they probe tradition and seek to build a faith that is rooted
in the past while still being relevant to the present.
Having shown the strengths of the EC, Carson turns to several weaknesses in the third
chapter. He critiques their evaluation and denigration of modernism, their condemnation of
confessional Christianity and accuses them of having a view of Christianity under
modernism that is both theologically shallow and intellectually incoherent.
The fourth chapter serves as an introduction to postmodernism and the postmodern
mindset. For those who are unfamiliar with the changing times, and our societys emerging
epistemology, this chapter is a valuable introduction.
Carson goes on, in chapters five, six and seven to critique the Emerging Churchs
response to postmodernism. He is especially critical of the ECs handling of truth, and
frustrated by their refusal to deal with the tough questions. He finds that more often than
not, the EC leaders refuse to deal with the tough questions related to claims of absolute
truth. He is also concerned with the ECs stubborn refusal to use Scripture as the norming
norm against appeals to tradition, as well as the ECs emphasis on belonging before
believing. He deals with two books in some depthBrian McLarens A Generous
Orthodoxy as well as Steve Chalkes The Lost Message of Jesus, thus representing leaders of
the Emerging Church on both sides of the Atlantic. Carson arrives at a chilling conclusion.
I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything,
both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the Gospel...I cannot see how their own
words constitute anything less than a drift toward abandoning the gospel itself (page 186-
187).
- 154 -
The book concludes with a list of relevant Bible passages and A Biblical Meditation on
Truth and Experience. He closes with a challenge. So which shall we choose? Experience
or truth? Damn all false antitheses to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols,
they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose
oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ...If emerging church
leaders wish to become a long-term prophetic voice that produces enduring fruit and that
does not drift off toward progressive sectarianism and even, in the worst instances, outright
heresy, they must listen at least as carefully to criticisms of their movement as they
transparently want others to listen to them...If they manage this self-correction and worry
less about who is or who is not emergent and rather more about learning simultaneously to
be faithful to the Bible and effective in evangelizing the rising number of alienated biblical
illiterates in our culture, they may end up preserving the gains of their movement while
helping brothers and sisters who are more culturally conservative than they are learn to
reconnect with the culture. (page 234).
Carson faced a great difficulty in this book. How does one fairly and adequately critique a
movement as eclectic as the Emerging Church? Many have criticized this movement for
being so hard to pin down. Carson admits that not every critique he makes will be valid for
every person who considers himself a part of this conversation. Yet I feel that Carson did
as well as could be expected, focusing the majority of his attention on those who have the
majority of the influence.
My concerns with the book are twofold. First, while the Emerging Church is emerging at
the popular level, this book is written to appeal more to scholars and to those who are well-
versed in theology than to the neophyte. If it is true, as Carson claims, that most Emerging
leaders come from a fundamentalist background, then perhaps this is appropriate. But I am
not sure that this book offers a lot by way of popular appeal. If your teenage son has become
enamored with an Emerging Church while at college, I do not know that this book will
interest him or convince him to re-examine his church. That being said, he was not Carsons
target audience for Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. I have little doubt
that the majority of the major players leading the Emergent conversation will read and
absorb this book. I pray that the Spirit works in their hearts to humble themselves before the
Word, that they can test what Carson says in the light of Scripture.
My second concern is that Carson does not address in any depth some of the major
concerns of believers who examine this movement from the outside. Among these are the
mysticism and ecumenism that seem foundational to the Emerging Church.
This book is surely the most valuable contribution available to us in challenging the
Emerging Church. Carson evaluates the EC in the light of Scripture, showing where it falls
far short and providing suggestions for appropriate remedies. This book succeeds in its task
and I highly recommend it.
Tim Challies
- 155 -
Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to The Passion of the
Christ. By Stephen Nichols. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008; 237 pp.,
$24.95.
Allow me to break standard book-reviewing protocol and simply sum up my thoughts on
Jesus Made in America: It is one of the most engaging, informative books Ive read this year.
In fact, Ill be surprised if this book doesnt make my annual Top Ten list of favorite
reads.
Jesus Made in America is not a history of Jesus Christ. Looking at the cover, one might
expect to find a novel that tells the story of Jesus in a contemporary setting. No, Jesus Made
in America is mainly about America, specifically - how Americans tend to remake Jesus in
our own image and to service whatever needs or promote whatever causes we believe are
important. Listen to Nichols:
The history of the American evangelical Jesus reveals that such complexities as the two
natures of Christ have often been brushed aside, either on purpose or out of expediency.
Too often his deity has been eclipsed by his humanity, and occasionally the reverse is true.
Too often American evangelicals have settled for a Christology that can be reduced to a
bumper sticker. Too often devotion to Jesus has eclipsed theologizing about Jesus. Todays
American evangelicals may be quick to speak of their love for Jesus, even wearing their
devotion on their sleeve, literally in the case of WWJD bracelets. But they may not be so
quick to articulate an orthodox view of the object of their devotion. Their devotion is
commendable, but the lack of a rigorous theology behind it means that a generation of
contemporary evangelicals is living off of borrowed capital. This quest for the historical
Jesus of American evangelicalism is not just a story of the past; it perhaps will help us
understand the present, and it might even be a parable for the future. This parable teaches us
that Jesus is not actually made in America. He is made and remade and remade again. What
will next years model look like? (18)
Nichols sets the bar high by devoting his opening chapter to the Puritan view of Christ.
By drawing on the theology of Jonathan Edwards and the lesser known Edward Taylor,
Nichols shows how the Puritans combined a fervent devotion to Christ with a fervent desire
to know more about Christ. Overall, his picture of the Puritans helps put an end to some of
the unfair generalizations made about the Puritan period. And yet, Nichols does not view the
Puritans through rose-colored glasses. He criticizes their propensity to act in un-Christlike
ways. (41)
Next, Nichols turns to the Jesus of the Founding Fathers. Here, he takes issue with the
evangelicals who see their reflection in the beliefs of the founders. Nichols shows from their
letters and writings how Jefferson, Franklin, and even Washington and Adams were all
basically Deists (though some were more orthodox than others, of course). The Jesus of the
founders was focused on virtue, not theology on morals, not salvation.
With the foundation of the American view of Jesus set (through the pious orthodoxy of
the Puritans and the Deistic, individualistic ideals of the Founders), Nichols then takes us
through the previous two centuries of Christian life in America. He shows how Jesus was
- 156 -
viewed by the frontier people as tough, casting off all ecclesiastical authority. He describes
the meek and mild Jesus of Victorian culture in the late 1800s. He watches the rise of
liberalism in the early 1900s, making Jesus out to be a hero for the modern world.
The last four chapters hit closer to home. Nichols devotes space to the Contemporary
Christian music scene, the portrayal of Jesus in Hollywood movies, the consumerist impulse
that markets and sells Jesus stuff, and the alignment of Jesus with the Religious Right or
Left (depending upon the politician). (My only quibble with Nichols is that he seems to be
more enamored with Jim Wallis than James Dobson. But I could be reading him wrong.)
The point of Nichols book? Jesus is the patron saint of everything. Every culture, in
some way, seeks to mold Jesus into its own image. We are all susceptible to the danger. And
yet, we can avoid the excessiveness of our own versions of Jesus by listening to Scripture
first, tradition second, and experience third (instead of reversing that order, which is often
the case in American spirituality).
Nichols encourages us to uphold Jesus in all his glorious complexity, not shrinking back
from theological reflection. He helps us learn from the mistakes of those in the past,
while offering words of wisdom for those of us seeking to be faithful to Jesus in the present.
Tim Challies
The Courage To Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the
Postmodern World. By David Wells. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008; 253 pp.,
$25.00.
My interest in reading good books came a little bit too late to read David Wells four part
series of books as they were released (No Place for Truth, God in the Wasteland, Losing
Our Virtue and Above All Earthly Powrs). I now have the four volumes sitting on my
bookshelf and have often thumbed through them wishing I could muster up the motivation
to dive into the series. The problem is that I am intimidated as I look at them and consider
that each of them weighs in at several hundred pages. I know that twelve hundred or more
pages of dense content would prove quite the challenge to me and to my too-short attention
span.
This is the very reason Wells chose to write The Courage To Be Protestant. This is not a
fifth entry in the series as much as it is, or as much as it began at least, as a summary of
them. Once this work got under way, Wells writes, I found myself not so much
compressing as recasting all that I had done and then updating it. The result is that this book
is less a summary and more an attempt at getting at the essence of the project that has
engaged me over the last fifteen years. And, hopefully, it will be more accessible than the
previous books, not to mention less taxing on readers!
Wells gets straight to the point. It takes no courage to sign up as a ProtestantTo live
by the truths of historic Protestantism, however, is an entirely different matter. That takes
courage in todays context. The truths that Protestants have lived and died by have
somehow become no more welcome within a Protestant context than in the outside culture.
- 157 -
Those who would seek to live by the distinctives of the theology of the Bible must have
courage to stand not only against the world but against much of the church.
In an opening chapter Wells describes the lay of the Evangelical land and here he refers
to three distinct constituencies into which Protestantism seems to be dividing in our day.
These constituencies, though, are not drawn around issues of theology as they may have
been in days past. When all is said and done today, many evangelicals are indifferent to
doctrine. What rearranges the evangelical territory in our day is the culture around us and
our engagement with it. This is not a serious engagement with culture, but instead a
pragmatic catering to it. This quest for success, which passes under the language of
relevance, is what is partitioning the evangelical world into its three segments. The
partitions Wells refers to are classic evangelicalism, marketers and emergents.
Having described how marketers and emergents arose out of classical evangelicalism, he
provides a chapter called Christianity for Sale in which he shows how in recent decades
churches became convinced that they must change their way of doing business or face
inevitable extinction. This church as business model transformed the way churches
perceived themselves and led to the raising of methodology over theology. What began as a
simple recognition by church marketers that parking should be convenient, signs evident,
and bathrooms clean has somehow begun a migration. The migration eventually led to the
transformation of not only the traditional church but also the traditional theology it lives by.
The church began to look at the unchurched men and women around them as customers
and those customers soon became their theology. The Bible fell out of favor as pragmatism
took over.
The bulk of the book looks to the five predominant themes arising from Wells previous
four books. The themes are truth, God, self, Christ and church. Each one is treated in a
substantial chapter. Time would fail me to describe each of these chapters. Suffice it to say
that this book is much like watching Sportscenter or another sports highlights show. It is a
highlight reel of the previous books. Where during the course of a typical ballgame you can
expect there will be stretches where you will witness little of great importance, during the
highlight shows you need to pay attention as youll see only the most important moments.
This book is similar. Every page is important and every chapter is packed with fascinating
content. Rare is the page in my copy of the book that is not stained with substantial amounts
of highlighter.
The Courage To Be Protestant marks the end of Wells magnum opusthe work to
which he has dedicated himself for almost two decades. It is an utterly brilliant book and one
that I feel is a recommended read, and maybe even a must read, for any Protestant. Wells
kept me glued to his text for page after page as he challenged me, as one who seeks to be a
classical evangelical and who seeks to hold faithfully to the theology of Scripture, to display
the courage it takes to be Protestant in the church today.
Tim Challies
- 158 -
The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories. By Thomas Fowler

and Daniel Kuebler. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008; 384 pp., $26.00.
There are few topics that are the source of greater controversy (at least in the United States)
than the topic of evolution. Evolution is the source of controversy within churches, schools,
the halls of government, and even popular culture. Over 150 years after the publication of
Charles Darwins The Origin of Species, this controversy shows no signs of slowing. For
Christians seeking to get a grasp on the complexities of the controversy, the number of
books and articles defending and critiquing various views can often become overwhelming.
Terms such as Neo-Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism,
Punctuated Equilibrium, Theistic Evolution, Evo-Devo, Irreducible Complexity,
and many more are commonplace in the writings devoted to the subject. For the interested
layman, understanding who is saying what, and why, can be difficult.
The Evolution Controversy by Thomas Fowler and Daniel Kuebler is not another book
advocating a particular position in the debate. It does contain an annotated bibliography for
those looking for such books and articles, but it is itself not one of those books. The stated
purpose of this book is to provide an unbiased scientific overview of the leading theories
about evolution (p. 13). In other words, it is a survey of the different views. It does not,
therefore, get into any in-depth discussions of philosophical, theological, or exegetical issues.
Despite the fact that the authors intention is not to defend any particular view but only to
provide an accurate, balanced, and in-depth survey of all the major views, such a goal
remains a tall order. On an issue as hotly debated as this one, it will be interesting to see
whether proponents of the major views believe that their position is presented fairly.
The book itself is divided into three major parts. In Part One, the authors examine in
four chapters the background issues they consider necessary to an understanding of the
controversy. In Part Two, separate chapters are devoted to an in-depth look at each of the
four major schools of thought. Finally, in Part Three, the authors discuss some of the public
policy implications of the controversy.
Fowler and Kuebler begin by clarifying the definition of evolution. They helpfully
distinguish different ways that the word is used, pointing out that equivocal uses of the term
have caused some of the confusion in the controversy. The authors also point out the
distinction that must be made in science between facts, inferences, and philosophies based
on such inferences. This is important because in this controversy inferences are often
presented as facts. In chapter 2, the authors provide a summary history of the idea of organic
evolution from ancient times to the present day. Readers should know that there were
philosophical and biological precursors to Darwin. In other words, the idea did not appear
suddenly and without precedent in the middle of the nineteenth century.
In chapter 3, Fowler and Kuebler lay out the raw data that any theory of origins must
explain. In other words, this chapter sets forth the basic observations that scientists from
each of the various schools of thought have made and are able to make. Such raw data
includes the fossil record; the observable geological features of the earth; the anatomical,
physiological, biochemical, genetic, and functional similarities among various creatures; the
distribution of flora and fauna; the adaption of flora and fauna to their environment; and the
- 159 -
complexity of biological molecules, systems, and structures. Scientists within each of the
major schools of thought attempt to explain these observable details of the physical world.
In the final chapter of Part One, Fowler and Kuebler clarify the principal points of
contention among the various schools. They identify six major points of dispute:
1. Common descent of organisms from a single progenitor versus common design
plan.
2. The ability of random mutation to create new biological information.
3. The efficacy of random mutation coupled with natural selection.
4. The age and chronology of the earth and the universe.
5. The scope of naturalistic explanations in science.
6. What constitutes a bona fide scientific theory.
The authors look at each of these points, explain the position of the various schools of
thought on each one, and explain the way each point affects those schools overall view.
In Part Two, the authors turn to a survey of the four major positions. Each of the four
chapters in this section is devoted to an in-depth explanation of one of the four main views.
In each chapter, the authors attempt to look as objectively as possible at the strengths and
weaknesses of the theory under consideration. In chapter 5, they look at Neo-Darwinism,
the dominant position within the modern mainstream scientific establishment. Chapter 6 is
devoted to an examination of the Creationist school of thought. In chapter 7, the authors
look at the Intelligent Design Movement. Finally, in chapter 8, they look at what they have
termed Meta-Darwinism. The various theories under this umbrella term seek to
supplement Neo-Darwinism with additional naturalistic explanations.
Some readers may be wondering why Theistic Evolution is not included among the
major views. The authors address this question and explain their reasoning as follows:
Where do the theistic evolutionists fit within this scheme? Theistic evolutionists are
found in all camps except the Creationist camp. Theistic evolution is an attempt to
harmonize or reconcile theological doctrines and the Bible with some particular scientific
understanding of evolution. It comes in many varieties, including continuous creative
activity, front loaded activity, and completely indirect or hands-off approaches. Theistic
evolution is thus not a new scientific theory to explain observed facts, but rather an
interpretation of some existing scientific theory (p. 25, n. 4).
The four chapters in Part Two are particularly helpful in that they carefully explain what
each school of thought does and does not teach. This is necessary because the heat of the
discussion has led at times to misrepresentations of what one or another school actually
teaches. Since it is impossible to evaluate an idea if that idea is not accurately understood, the
authors provide an invaluable service by clearing away many of the misrepresentations. The
fact that the authors subject each of the four views to detailed scrutiny and critique,
however, means that there will likely be proponents within each of these schools who are
- 160 -
not entirely happy with the book. In this reviewers opinion, however, the authors have done
the proponents of each school a service by forcing them, if necessary, to move beyond
rhetoric and deal with the arguments. Many proponents of each school already acknowledge
the weaknesses in their arguments that Fowler and Kuebler point out. This book can only
help them as they seek either to strengthen those arguments or replace them with stronger
ones.
Regarding Neo-Darwinism, the authors observe that among the stronger arguments for
the theory are the observed physiological and genetic commonalities found among different
species. On the other hand, weaknesses are seen in Neo-Darwinisms propensity to confuse
just-so stories with actual arguments and to equate microevolution with macroevolution.
To propose, for example, a story of how something could have happened is not a proof that
it did happen in that way. Unfortunately, many Neo-Darwinians seem to think that such
hypothetical stories constitute evidence. Many Neo-Darwinists also assume that evidence for
microevolution (which is accepted by proponents of all schools including Creationism) is
proof of macroevolution. As Fowler and Kuebler point out, this is simply not the case.
In their discussion of Creationism, the authors point out that many proponents of this
school of thought have rested almost everything on the argument that the earth is less than
10,000 years old. They note that there are many old earth Creationists, but focus on
young-earth Creationism since it represents a completely different interpretation of the raw
data discussed in chapter 3. Old-earth Creationists believe that young-earth Creationists
have misinterpreted the early chapters of Genesis and that this misinterpretation forces them
to interpret the observable data differently. The authors do not discuss this exegetical debate.
Instead, because the age of the universe is key in this discussion, the authors devote much of
the chapter to evaluating the various arguments and theories that Creationists have proposed
to explain the apparent old age of the universe (e.g., the proposal made by some Creationists
that the speed of light has changed). They also look at various Creationist explanations of
the observable geological features of the earth, explanations which are usually related in
some way to the Genesis flood. In other words, geological features that Neo-Darwinists
would attribute to very slow and gradual processes are attributed by Creationists to
catastrophic processes associated with the worldwide upheaval caused by the flood. The
authors take a particularly close look at Walter Browns hydroplate theory because it makes
testable predictions that can be verified or falsified (They note that some have already been
verified). The authors point out, and many proponents of Creationism readily admit, that the
major hurdle faced in the effort to have Creationist theories taken seriously by those who are
not Creationists, is the apparent age of the universe. This issue, therefore, remains at the
forefront of Creationist research.
The Intelligent Design school, often referred to as ID, is the most recent player in the
evolution controversy. As the authors explain, the primary argument made by proponents of
Intelligent Design is that the complexity observed in many biological systems is too great to
be explained by any purely naturalistic mechanisms. Proponents postulate that direct
intervention by an intelligent designer can be inferred from this observation. One major
argument of the Intelligent Design school is that it is possible to come up with a testable
scientific filter for detecting design. Fowler and Kuebler look at this claim and point out its
- 161 -
strengths and weaknesses. They also devote considerable space to the idea of irreducible
complexity, an idea which has arisen in the work of Intelligent Design proponents in
connection with their research into complex biological systems. Fowler and Kuebler cite
Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski for a definition:
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of
well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in
the set is indispensible to maintaining the systems basic, and therefore original function. The
set of these indispensible parts is known as the irreducible core of the system (p. 253).
An example the authors provide to illustrate this concept is an old pocket watch. The
glass and the chain are not essential, but there are a set of gears that are absolutely essential
for the watch to function. If even one of these gears is removed, the watch ceases to
function completely. It does not retain some of its ability to keep time. Instead, it is
completely unable to keep time. Furthermore, the new arrangement of the watch minus one
of its gears, serves no new function. Proponents of Intelligent Design argue that many
biological systems are irreducibly complex in a similar way and, more importantly, that such
systems could not have been the result of the gradual step by step assembly required by
Neo-Darwinism. Because Intelligent Design is still in its early stages, the observations of
Fowler and Kuebler regarding its strengths and weaknesses should prove beneficial to its
proponents as they continue to refine their work.
Fowler and Kuebler have coined the term Meta-Darwinism to refer to those
evolutionists who remain committed to purely naturalistic explanations but who find the
Neo-Darwinian theory lacking and who propose natural mechanisms in addition to or
instead of natural selection working on random mutations. The discussion of Meta-
Darwinism may prove most informative to Christian readers who have heard of Darwinism,
Creationism, and Intelligent Design, but who may not have been aware of dissent among the
ranks of scientists operating within a purely naturalistic framework. In their discussion of
Meta-Darwinism, Fowler and Kuebler focus on eight specific theories, looking at their
strengths and weaknesses in explaining the raw data. These eight theories are:
1. The punctuated equilibrium theory of Steven Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.
2. The idea of hierarchical selection also proposed by Gould and Eldredge.
3. The idea of exaptation proposed by Gould and Eldredge.
4. The neutral theory of molecular evolution proposed by Motoo Kimura.
5. The idea of developmental mutations (evo-devo) proposed by Sean Carroll and
Jeffrey Schwartz.
6. The theory of morphogenic fields proposed by Brian Goodwin.
7. The self-organization/complexity theory of Stuart Kauffman.
8. The theory of endosymbiosis proposed by Lynn Margulis.
- 162 -
Because the proponents of these various theories do not agree on every point, the
authors task is made somewhat more difficult, but they do a good job explaining complex
concepts and making them understandable to readers with little or no background in the
natural sciences.
In Part Three, the authors turn to public policy implications of the evolution
controversy. The chapter focuses on six basic questions:
1. Who is the legitimate spokesperson for science?
2. What types of evolution research should be funded with public money?
3. Should equal time or any time be given in the classroom for theories other than
Darwinism?
4. Should the courts be the primary battleground for the evolution controversy, or
should they not be involved at all?
5. What are the moral and ethical dimensions of the controversy?
6. Do purely naturalistic theories of evolution function as surrogate or virtual religions?
The answer to each of these questions is disputed, and the authors provide a helpful
survey of the arguments used by those on all sides of the debate. A particularly noteworthy
point they make is that the truth or falsity of scientific theories should not be determined in
the courts.
In a final chapter, the authors summarize the major points of the book and reveal their
own position. I did not skip ahead in my reading of the book to discover the position held
by the authors because I wanted to see if I could guess it by detecting any bias in their
presentation of the various views. The fact that it was somewhat difficult to guess precisely
indicates that the authors largely succeeded in their quest to present all of the views as
objectively as possible.
For those readers who are interested, Fowler and Kuebler believe that there is some
evidence favoring the Darwinian account of evolution. They also believe there is evidence
against it and problems with the theories associated with it. Furthermore, they do not believe
that supporters of Darwinism are always candid about those problems. They believe that
each of the other three schools face problems as well that must be met head on, but they
believe that none of the three can be definitively ruled out at present. They do state,
however, that they believe young earth Creationism faces the most serious hurdles.
Creationists will, of course, strongly disagree.
Since the stated purpose of this volume is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
the four major schools in regard to their handling of the common observational data
available to all, it succeeds rather well in reaching that goal. A problem arises, however, since
proponents of each of the schools look at all of this evidence with different starting
assumptions. For Creationists, whether old-earth or young-earth, and for some proponents
of Intelligent Design, the teaching of Scripture is necessarily taken into account. On the
other hand, those Neo-Darwinists and Meta-Darwinists who are not also theistic
- 163 -
evolutionists do not consider Scripture relevant to the debate at all. What this means is that
the controversy will not be resolved by mere study of the raw data. Underlying
philosophical and religious (or anti-religious) assumptions must be taken into account as
well. Although Fowler and Kuebler recognize this, they purposely limit themselves to a
discussion of the observable natural evidence. This means that while their book is very
helpful in many ways, it will have to be supplemented by other works dealing with
underlying philosophical and metaphysical questions.
One such question concerns the very definition of science. Considering the limited
purpose of the book, my only serious complaint is that the authors did not spend more time
discussing this issue. Neo-Darwinists regularly mock Creationists and Intelligent Design
proponents for advancing arguments the Neo-Darwinists consider to be unscientific. On
the other hand, proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design argue that many aspects
of Neo-Darwinism are unscientific and use many similar arguments. They argue, for
example, that Neo-Darwinism incorporates philosophical issues into its scientific theory.
The problem is that so much of this controversy involves historical events that are
unrepeatable and untestable. It also involves events that some claim occur very gradually
over enormous periods of time. Such events are therefore unobservable. Because of this, it is
necessary to understand precisely how the study of such events fits within the normal
definition of science. The authors indicate early on that they will not be dealing at any
great length with detailed philosophical and religious aspects of the debate. However, since
even the discussion of scientific evidence requires some kind of agreement on the
definition of science, it seems to this reviewer that more discussion of this particular
philosophical question might be necessary.
Tim Challies
- 164 -
BOOK NOTES AND COMMENTS
Beale, G. K. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. IVP

Academic, 2008.
Description: The heart of the biblical understanding of idolatry, argues Gregory Beale, is that
we take on the characteristics of what we worship. Employing Isaiah 6 as his interpretive
lens, Beale demonstrates that this understanding of idolatry permeates the whole canon,
from Genesis to Revelation. Beale concludes with an application of the biblical notion of
idolatry to the challenges of contemporary life.
Bird, Michael F.; Crossley, James G. How Did Christianity Begin?: A Believer and
Non-believer Examine the Evidence. Hendrickson, 2009.
Description: The objective of How Did Christianity Begin? is to present two contrasting
perspectives on the history of early Christianity. The contrast is evidently sharp as one co-
author comes from a conservative Christian background (Michael Bird), while the other co-
author (James Crossley) approaches the matter from a secular standpoint. The volume works
sequentially through Christian origins and addresses various topics including the historical
Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the Apostle Paul, the Gospels, and the early church. Each
author in turn examines these subjects and lays out his historical arguments concerning their
origin and meaning. The volume also includes short responses from two other scholars
(Maurice Casey and Scot McKnight) to the arguments of Bird and Crossley so as to give an
even handed and broad evaluation of the arguments and debates that unfold.
Cambridge History of Christianity, 10 Vols. Cambridge University Press, 2005-
2009.
Description: The Cambridge History of Christianity will provide the first complete
chronological account of the development of Christianity in all its aspectstheological,
social, political, regional, globalfrom the time of Christ to the present day. This ambitious
project in nine volumes will connect the institutional history of the churches with the study
of systematic and applied (pastoral) theology, and will cover popular piety and non-formal
expressions of Christian faith as well as the more formal. The sociology of Christian
formation, worship and devotion will be placed in a broad cultural context, and proper
attention will be paid throughout to issues of spirituality and the spiritual content of
Christianitys development. This is not a history merely of Western Christianity. Into the
study of the early church and beyond, consideration of Eastern and Coptic Christianity will
be properly integrated; and later, African, Far Eastern, New World, South Asian and other
non-European developments in Christianity will receive proper coverage. The relations
between Christianity and Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, and Christianity and Judaism will
be kept in sight. Each of the nine volumes will be of value as a free-standing contribution
within its own period; and when complete, The Cambridge History of Christianity will
constitute one of the major works of academic reference of our times.
Comment: Series is now complete. Nine volumes.
- 165 -
Cavanaugh, William T. Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. Wm. B.

Eerdmans, 2008.
Description: Should Christians be for or against the free market? For or against
globalization? How are we to live in a world of scarcity? William Cavanaugh uses Christian
resources to incisively address basic economic mattersthe free market, consumer culture,
globalization, and scarcityarguing that we should not just accept these as givens but should
instead change the terms of the debate. Among other things, Cavanaugh discusses how God,
in the Eucharist, forms us to consume and be consumed rightly. Examining pathologies of
desire in contemporary free market economies, Being Consumed puts forth a positive and
inspiring vision of how the body of Christ can engage in economic alternatives. At every
turn, Cavanaugh illustrates his theological analysis with concrete examples of Christian
economic practices.
Christensen, Michael J.; Wittung, Jeffery A. (eds). Partakers of the Divine Nature:
The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions. Baker
Academic, 2008.
Description: This critical volume focuses on the concept of deification in Christian
intellectual history. It draws together Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant
scholars to introduce and explain the theory of deification as a biblically rooted, central
theme in the Christian doctrine of salvation in diverse eras and traditions. The book
addresses the origin, development, and function of deification from its precursors in ancient
Greek philosophy to its nuanced use in contemporary theological thought. The revival of
interest in deification, which has often been seen as heresy in the Protestant West, heralds a
return to foundational understandings of salvation in the Christian church before divisions
of East and West, Catholic and Protestant.
Copan, Paul. Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion. Chalice Press,
2007.
Description: Presenting a distinctively and deliberately Christian philosophy of religion,
Loving Wisdom addresses a wide range of topics and questions. Copan acknowledges the
difficulties, mystery, and disagreement of religion, and instead of using the language of
proofs, he attempts to show how the Christian faith does a much more adequate job of
answering a wide range of questions.
Disbrey, Claire. Wrestling with Lifes Tough Issues: What Should a Christian Do?
Hendrickson, 2008.
Description: Sometimes Christians, faced with making ethical decisions informed by the
Bible, are torn between keeping the law and doing what love demandsthere is
evidence in the Bible supporting both approaches. In this book Claire Disbrey suggests that
in an effort to utilize both trends when making decisions, Christians should be guided by
Virtue Ethicsthe idea that we seek first to become virtuous people who value the right
things and then express our values in the way we treat people. A good life is one lived in
harmony with other people and the biblical truths and can determine what is trivial in life
- 166 -
from what is serious and worthwhile. This third way of virtue ethics heeds the Bibles
challenging call to let Gods Spirit change us so that we live well with the fruit of the Spirit
manifest in our lives. The author provides helpful case studies of people caught in
complex life situations. In these case studies the reader studies relevant passages from the
New Testament and thinks through the sometimes difficult process of deciding how best to
apply Biblical truths to specific personal decisions and painful ethical dilemmas. The author
demonstrates how the ancient, rediscovered notion of Virtue Ethics can help us heed the
Bibles challenging call to let Gods Spirit change us, so that we learn to live well, with the
fruit of the Spirit manifest in our lives.
Finlan, Stephen; Kharlamov, Vladimir (eds). Theosis: Deification in Christian
Theology. Pickwick Publications, 2006.
Description: Deification refers to the transformation of believers into the likeness of God.
Of course, Christian monotheism goes against any literal god making of believers. Rather,
the NT speaks of a transformation of mind, a metamorphosis of character, a redefinition of
selfhood, and an imitation of God. Most of these passages are tantalizingly brief, and none
spells out the concept in detail.
Deification was an important idea in the early church, though it took a long time for one
term to emerge as the standard label for the process. That term was theosis, coined by the
great fourth-century theologian, Gregory of Nazianzus. Theologians now use theosis to
designate all instances where any idea of taking on Gods character or being divinized
(made divine) occurs, even when the term theosis is not used. And of course, different
Christian authors understood deification differently.
While some articles in this collection discuss pre-Christian antecedents of theosis, Greek
and Jewish, most focus on particular Christian understandings. The article by Gregory
Glazov examines OT covenant theology, with an emphasis on divine adoption, and on
bearing the fruit of knowledge or attaining the stature of a tree of righteousness in Proverbs,
Isaiah, and Sirach. The article by Stephen Finlan on 2 Pet 1:4 (You may become participants
of the divine nature) examines the epistles apparent borrowings from Middle Platonic
spirituality, Stoic ethics, and Jewish apocalyptic expectation. The epistle stresses knowledge
of Christ, which means cultivation of godly character and growing up into Christ.
Comment: ATI feature article contributor, Dr. Myk Habets, has a delightful and informative
chapter in the book titled, Reforming Thesis.
Gorman, Michael J. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and
Ministers (rev, exp edition). Hendrickson, 2009.
Description: In this revised and expanded edition of Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic
Guide for Students and Ministers, Michael J. Gorman presents a straightforward approach to
the complex task of biblical exegesis. Designed for students, teachers, and ministers, this
hands-on guide breaks the task down into seven distinct elements. For each of these,
Gorman supplies a clear explanation, practical hints, and suggested exercises to help the
reader develop exegetical proficiency. The new edition addresses more fully the meaning of
theological interpretation and provides updated print and internet resources for those who
- 167 -
want to pursue further study in any aspect of exegesis. Appendixes offer three sample
exegesis papers and practical guidelines for writing a research exegesis paper.
Heimbichner, Craig. Blood on the Altar: The Secret History of the Worlds Most
Dangerous Secret Society. Independent History and Research, 2005.
Description: Whats beyond Freemasonry? Thats the question investigators have pondered
for decades and Craig Heimbichner furnishes fascinating answers as he probes deeply into
the sooty arcana of the Ordo Templi Orientisor OTOthe higher secret society to
which elite Freemasons emigrate as part of a process of occult succession.
Blood on the Altar pursues the shape-shifting trail of this successor group, on the Left as the
pillar of a libertarian ethos, avant-garde drug culture and radical hedonism; on the Right, as
the pillar of aristocratic preference for authoritarian rule and classical culture.
Heimbichner has deconstructed not just a Janus-faced secret society but a method of
operation so deceptive, the reader can hardly believe that such audacious and far-flung
duplicity and misdirection could possibly succeed for so long without exposure. But succeed
it has, until now.
The head-spinning trail of the OTO leads from the US government to the NASA rocket
program, from the Hollywood film industry to Right-wing patriot groups, from the New
Age craze for the Kabbalah, to an attempt to control the conservative enthusiasm for
traditional liturgy.
The OTO has marched from triumph after triumph, as the spectre of its Great Beast,
British Intelligence officer Aleister Crowley, cast its Thelemic spell over a double-minded
populace alternately seeking freedom-and-constraint, sex-and-repression, magick-and-
Christendom, science-and-superstition. Blood on the Altar shows the OTO to be the
signature secret society behind the most dazzlingand puzzling charades of the modern
Cryptocracy.
Comment: Though its surely par for the course for a book of this kind, the subject matter is
exceedingly dark and, at times, grotesque (though, without celebration). Informative, but
difficult at times to ascertain precisely to what extent Heimbichner believes these dark,
occultic forces to be pulling the strings.
Heschel, Susannah. The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi
Germany. Princeton, 2008.
Description: Was Jesus a Nazi? During the Third Reich, German Protestant theologians,
motivated by racism and tapping into traditional Christian anti-Semitism, redefined Jesus as
an Aryan and Christianity as a religion at war with Judaism. In 1939, these theologians
established the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German
Religious Life. In The Aryan Jesus, Susannah Heschel shows that during the Third Reich, the
Institute became the most important propaganda organ of German Protestantism, exerting a
widespread influence and producing a nazified Christianity that placed anti-Semitism at its
theological center.
- 168 -
Comment: Sure, but is the title really necessary?

Leithart, Peter J. Solomon Among The Postmoderns. Brazos Press, 2008.
Description: Solomons words from a famous passage of Ecclesiastes have been translated,
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. In Solomon among the Postmoderns, Peter Leithart says
those words are better translated Vapor of vapors, all is vapor, emphasizing that human
life is fleeting. He uses this theme, as well as the entire book of Ecclesiastes, to indicate how
Solomon resonated with the themes of todays postmodernism.
Comment: A thoroughly engaging and enjoyable read which Fr. Neuhaus of First Things
while remaining mildly criticalcalls a pleasant stroll through contemporary philosophy,
literary theory, and cultural studies...[and is] going in the right direction.
Mason, Steve. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories
Hendrickson, 2009.
Description: A collection of essays focusing on the threads in Josephus that are of particular
interest to people studying the background and development of Christianity. The book takes
up basic but often overlooked questions of historical method in studying first-century Judea
and the origins of Christianity. Many of these questions concern the use of Josephus for
reconstructing this history. Chapters deal with Josephus authority, his method of publication
and audiences, Judaism, Pharisees, Essenes, gospel, and much else.
Comment: Has the sense of setting a new, definitive standard of scholarly treatments of the
Josephian corpus. Masons comprehensive volume will no doubt quickly merit the gramercy
of all scholars of Christian antiquity.
McGlasson, Paul C. Invitation to Dogmatic Theology: A Canonical Approach.
Brazos Press, 2006.
Description: Pet doctrines can be dangerous, whether they come from conservative or liberal
believers. Former seminary professor Paul McGlasson, now a Presbyterian pastor, invites all
Christians to come together to think about the Word of the living God with the mission of
the church in mind. His desire is that Christians must turn directly to Scripture itself,
seeking to hear the living voice of Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Along the
way, he examines liberal and evangelical theologies, church movements, and politics. This
thought-provoking book will be stimulating reading for pastors, seminary students, and any
other Christians concerned with the health and unity of the body of Christ.
Natoli, Charles M. Fire in the Dark: Essays on Pascals Pensees and Provinciales.
University of Rochester Press, 2005.
Description: Pascals Penses afford a deeply penetrating view of the human condition (or
predicament) as a prelude to a luminously reasoned defense of the Christian faith. His
Provincial Letters are best remembered as a wickedly funny satire of obliging and
accommodating Jesuit moral theologians who, guided by policy rather than piety, are willing
to put virtue and salvation within the easy reach of all but the diabolical. Both works are
landmarks of French prose that have fascinated readers of all sorts from his day to ours. The
- 169 -
eight essays in Fire in the Dark, two of which are new and four of which first appeared in
French, frame and probe Pascals underlying contention that the darkling, hidden God of
Christian Revelation, though Himself a profound mystery, especially in the matter of his
justice towards fallen mankind, can nonetheless be used to demystify questions that matter
most to us. But can the Supremely Obscure, like a dark lantern that is supremely dark, really
illumine our whence, whither, and what now - our nature, destiny and duties? Watchman,
what of the night? The answers Pascal offers to Isaiahs query, whether they finally shed
light on our worlds chiaroscuro or not, can at least claim the authority of coming from out
of the dark.
Comment: Scholarly exegesis of the Pascalian corpus does not get better than this.
Need, Stephen W. Truly Divine and Truly Human. SPCK Publishing, 2008.
Description: Truly Divine and Truly Human traces the fascinating story of how Christians
came to proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as both truly divine and truly human. It follows the
centuries of debate-and the Church councils-that led up to this proclamation and the
years of argument and schism that followed. This declaration has remained central to
Christianity down the centuries and an appreciation of how it was made is crucial not only
for an understanding of Christian history but also for an understanding of Christian identity
today.
Between 325 and 787 AD seven ecumenical councils took place in the early church. This
book discusses what they had to say about Jesus Christ in the context of the developing
Trinitarian theology of the time. Stephen Need examines the controversies that led up to the
first seven ecumenical councils, the councils themselves, the decisions they made, the key
theologians involved and the cities in which the councils were held. A final chapter looks at
the contemporary significance of these councils and their positions for the church.
Shults, F. Leron. Christology and Science. Ashgate, 2008.
Description: The dialogue between theology and science has blossomed in recent decades,
but particular beliefs about Jesus Christ have not often been brought to the forefront of this
interdisciplinary discussion even in explicitly Christian contexts. This book breaks new
ground by explicitly bringing the specific themes of Christology into dialogue with
contemporary science. It engages recent developments in late modern philosophy of science
in order to articulate the Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ in a way that responds to
challenges and opportunities that have arisen in light of various scientific discoveries. The
main chapters deal with Incarnation, Atonement and Parousia. After a brief treatment of the
history of the shaping of these ideas, the author traces developments in some of the sciences
that have challenged these formulations: evolutionary biology, cultural anthropology and
physical cosmology. Each chapter also summarizes some of the popular constructive
responses to these developments. After clarifying the way in which the Christian
understanding of God and of humanity shape the task of reforming Christology, each
chapter concludes with a programmatic outline of ways in which we might articulate the
identity, agency and presence of Jesus Christ in dialogue with late modern science and
culture.
- 170 -
Comment: I (the General Editor), have read three of Shults books, each of which claim to
be following a trajectory of theological reconstruction (contradistinguished, by Shults, from
deconstructive and/or paleo-constructive approaches which should be tarred and feathered).
Ive not looked at this particular volume yet, but if it is at all in line with the other three I
have read, it is probably better classed as deconstructive by sheer dint of a consistent,
overreaching confidence inand fascination withmodern/postmodern science and
psychology. But what a paleo-constructive thing to say! One might also mention Shults
unrelenting prolixity. A good re-reading of Orwells seminal essay concerning the English
language (i.e., Politics and the English Language, 1946) is highly recommended. Sure,
theology and philosophy have their own storehouses of technical terms and phrases. But, if
Orwell is correct (he is), we should manifest our fabulous indices of thesauri-mined words in
an ever-conscious mode of verbal economy, that is, say more with less.
Simmons, William A. Peoples of the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide.
Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Description: Making sense of the New Testament requires navigating your way through the
labyrinth of different cultural, religious, political, and economic groups that existed in first-
century Jewish society as well as in the Roman Empire at large. In this introduction to the
major people groups of the New Testament world, William Simmons clarifies New
Testament history and teaching by providing a historical analysis of major Jewish groups
such as Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, as well as important Greco-Roman groups such as
Philosophers, Herodians, and Centurions. Important sub-groupings within the first-century
church, such as Hebrews and Hellenists, are set in the larger context of the Judeo-
Romanmix. Color photographs of ancient sites and archaeological discoveries highlight the
descriptions. A helpful resource for anyone interested in understanding the world of the
New Testament better, this book would also make an excellent textbook for an introductory
college or seminary course on early Christian history or backgrounds.
Comment: Beautifully bound, up-to-date, eminently readable, and comprehensive. No
stinginess with the illustrations either, which appear on just about every other page. Sure to
become a staple on the bookshelves of religious academicians and students everywhere
specializing in the Christian history and New Testament studies.
Sloane, Andrew. At Home in a Strange Land: Using the Old Testament in Christian
Ethics. Hendrickson, 2008.
Description: The Old Testament is a problem for many Christians. Some find it puzzling, or
even offensive; others seem to glibly misuse it for their own ends. There are few resources
aimed at enabling ordinary Christians to understand the OT and use it in their lives as
followers of Jesus . . . Andrew Sloane seeks to address this need. He outlines some of the
problems that ordinary Christians face in reading the Old Testament as part of Christian
Scripture and provides a framework for interpreting the Old Testament and using it in
Christian ethics. He identifies some of the key biblical texts of both the Old Testament and
the New Testament that both inform Christian ethics and challenge us to live as Gods
people. Using the paradigm of learning to travel in unfamiliar places, Sloane seeks to equip
the reader with tools for understanding many of the puzzling and difficult passages found in
- 171 -
the Old Testament. In sum, the book aims to rehabilitate the Old Testament for ordinary,
even skeptical, 21st century Christians.
Vardy, Peter. An Introduction to Kierkegaard. Hendrickson, 2008.
Description: An accessible introduction to one of the most influential philosophers of the
nineteenth century. Peter Vardy makes Kierkegaards often complex and difficult thinking
accessible to a wide audience. He sketches a few of the central themes of Kierkegaards
thought and gives the reader a feeling for the way he approaches problems and some sense
of the breadth of his work. This revised and expanded edition is an ideal introduction to
Kierkegaard for both students and the general reader.
Comment: If youre a Kierkegaard lover, nothing makes you cringe more than seeing all the
simplistic, far-too-abridged, usually-off-the-mark condensations and interpretations of his
massive corpus (especially those that try to systematize it!). Thankfully, in Vardys case,
there is cause for jubilation. His Introduction fares well indeed by teasing out SKs key
thoughts, mood, and contributions, but without ever reducing it to anything so terribly un-
Kierkegaardian as a system! For those who dont know SK at all but want to, this will now
easily be my first recourse.
- 172 -
THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM

THE APOSTLES CREED (OLD ROMAN FORM)
I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who
was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;
the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of
the Father, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy
Spirit; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; [and] the resurrection of the flesh.
THE NICNO-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father
before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and
for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the
Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He
suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and
ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again
with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the
Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church. I
acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the
dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
THE ATHANASIAN CREED
Whoever desires to be saved must above all things hold to the catholic faith. Unless a
man keeps it in its entirety inviolate, he will assuredly perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith, that we worship one God in trinity and trinity in unity,
without either confusing the persons, or dividing the substance. For the Fathers person is
one, the Sons another, the Holy Spirits another; but the Godhead of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty is co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such is also the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreate,
the Son uncreate, the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father is infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy
Spirit infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal. Yet there are not
three eternals, but one eternal; just as there are not three uncreates or three infinites, but one
uncreate and one infinite. In the same way the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy
Spirit almighty; yet there are not three almighties, but one almighty.
Thus the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God; and yet there are not three
Gods, but there is one God. Thus the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, the Holy Spirit Lord;
and yet there are not three Lords, but there is one Lord. Because just as we are compelled by
- 173 -
Christian truth to acknowledge each person separately to be both God and Lord, so we are
forbidden by the catholic religion to speak of three Gods or Lords.
The Father is from none, not made nor created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father
alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son,
not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this trinity there is
nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are co-eternal with each
other and co-equal. Thus in all things, as has been stated above, both trinity and unity and
unity in trinity must be worshipped. So he who desires to be saved should think thus of the
Trinity.
It is necessary, however, to eternal salvation that he should also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now the right faith is that we should believe and confess that our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is equally both God and man.
He is God from the Fathers substance, begotten before time; and He is man from His
mothers substance, born in time. Perfect God, perfect man composed of a human soul and
human flesh, equal to the Father in respect of His divinity, less than the Father in respect of
His humanity.
Who, although He is God and man, is nevertheless not two, but one Christ. He is one,
however, not by the transformation of His divinity into flesh, but by the taking up of His
humanity into God; one certainly not by confusion of substance, but by oneness of person.
For just as soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended to hell, rose from the dead, ascended to
heaven, sat down at the Fathers right hand, from where He will come to judge the living and
the dead; at whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies, and will render an
account of their deeds; and those who have done good will go to eternal life, those who have
done evil to eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith. Unless a man believes it faithfully and steadfastly, he cannot be
saved. Amen
THE DEFINITION OF CHALCEDON
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and
the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in
manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the
Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in
all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the
Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-
begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly,
inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather
the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one
Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only
begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have
- 174 -
declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of
the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
- 175 -
BOOK BY ATIs GENERAL EDITOR
The Great Apologists

Throughout church history, an unbroken phalanx of
apologists willing to defend historic Christian teaching have
arisen and helped to preserve the faithful against every
imaginable crises of faith, inimical philosophy, challenge
and heresy. Spanning two millennia of Christendom, Voices
of Reason in Christian History takes a fascinating look at
the lives, legacies, and primary writings of eleven key
defenders of the faith including: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Blaise
Pascal, Joseph Butler, William Paley, and C. S. Lewis.
A well-written and helpful analysis of a wealth of
apologetic materials from great Christian apologists
throughout the centuries.
Dr. Norman Geisler
President
Southern Evangelical Seminary
Gannon Murphy has done a great service for both Christian apologists and the wider believing
community. With impressive depth, he presents the ideas and arguments set forth by the leading
defenders of the faith across the ages. He reminds us of the debt of gratitude we owe to the giants on
whose shoulders we stand.
Dr. Paul Copan
Pledger Family Chair in Philosophy and Ethics
Palm Beach Atlantic University
It seems that even Christians who enjoy apologetics are seldom very knowledgeable regarding the
history of this storied discipline. Further , very few books ever address this subject. Gannon Murphys
volume seeks to remedy that lack, not only by choosing major, influential apologists of past
generations, but by linking each to his historical
context. This should be an invaluable addition to Publisher: Wingspread Publishers
the literature.
Retail Price: $16.99
Dr. Gary Habermas Web Price: $21.60
Chair of the Department of Philosophy and
Theology ISBN 10: 0-88965-233-3
Liberty University ISBN 13: 978-0-88965-233-0
Pages: 233
Binding: Soft cover
Publication Date: August 2005
Category: Theology, Church History
BOOK BY ATIs GENERAL EDITOR
Challenging Open Theism

While several works have taken the important step
of addressing open theisms scriptural deficiencies in
its denial of Gods foreknowledge, none have dealt
with the vital issue of divine-human relationality and
how it can be understood in a classical, orthodox
framework that maintains such foreknowledge.
Consuming Glory remedies that lack by first
providing a fresh critique of open theism using Clark
Pinnock's version of it as representative, but then
offering a reconstruction of divine-human
relationality centered on the Biblical principle of
Christus in nobis (Christ in us).
Christus in nobis is coupled with an outworking of

meticulous divine providence that serves Gods own
self-glorifying orientation. It reverses the relational
ordering advocated in open theism by grounding
human love of God theologically rather than
anthropologically. Love of God and divine-human
relationality is established precisely because it is
Gods own self-love that is providentially given to us
and thus reciprocated as believers are brought into
adoptive communion with the Triune Godhead.
Drawing on diverse resources throughout the corpus
of historical theology, Murphy concludes that
divine-human relationality can be summarized as
God delighting in himself, in us.
This work is not merely a critique of [open theist] Clark Pinnock, and neither is it a re-assertion of
traditionalist Evangelical theology in the face of open theism. While convincingly out-flanking
Pinnock and offering his own original view of
divine-human relationality, Murphy displays a Publisher: Wipf and Stock
degree of argumentative precision and attention to
Retail Price: $27.00
the depths of the tradition which far surpasses
Pinnock's work. He provides a fresh contribution to Web Price: $21.60
the debate concerning the doctrine of God which ISBN 10: 1-59752-843-9
will be of interest to a wide constituency. This book ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-843-6
is to be very warmly welcomed. Pages: 266
Dr. Simon Oliver Binding: Paperback
Associate Professor of Systematic Theology Publication Date: September 2006
University of Wales, Lampeter Category: Theology
The Basis of Belief
A Century of Drama and Debate
at the University of Minnesota
by Steven J. Keillor
The Basis of Belief tells the story of
the University of Minnesotas unofficial
educational agenda. Steven Keillor
considers selected controversies that
have been energetically debated by
educators, administrators, and students
for over a century at the University.
Keillor describes the clash between an
experimental, scientific basis for
knowledge and a reliance on testimony,
as in stories and first-hand accounts.
Which means of obtaining knowledge
was best? Which direction should a
university take in influencing and
promoting one or the other?
These arguments concern the place
in the University curriculum and
student life of such matters as science,
religion, psychology, literature, evolution, American Studies, academic freedom,
and loyalty, as well as less scholarly activities, such as student protests and strikes.
Keillor carefully draws upon diaries, letters, published accounts, and interviews to
assess how religion affected these subjects in academic life.
304 pages, 6 x 9, paperback, 2008

ISBN 13: 978-1-880654-440-8
Order Number: PP408$15.95
Pogo Press
An Imprint of Finney Company
8075 215th Street West, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
Phone: (952) 469-6699 or (800) 846-7027 Fax: (952) 469-1968 or (800) 330-6232
E-mail: feedback@finneyco.com Web sites: www.pogopress.com and www.finneyco.com
Around the world some 120,000 new books are published each year. That adds up to ten
thousand every month; over 300 each and every day. Americans buy over 4.5 million
books every day, including many of these new titles. This adds up to over 1.5 billion
books per year that are consumed within America. Yet even this totals only 35% of the
books that are sold worldwide. While it might seem that television and the Internet are
decreasing our love for reading, it is clear that books sell better today than at any other
time in history.
Discerning Reader is a site dedicated to promoting good books--books that bring honor
to God. At the same time, we hope to help Christians avoid being unduly influenced by
books and teachers that are not honoring to God.
Visit Discerning Reader today at:
www.discerningreader.com
To Orders Back Issues of
AMERICAL THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY
Online: www.wipfandstock.com; Email: orders [at] wipfandstock [dot] com
Phone: 541-344-1528; Fax: 541-344-1506
Vol 1, No 1 Vol 1, No 2
PATRISTIC READING: EXPOSITION OF THE PATRISTIC READING: THE CONFERENCES,
PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCHES FIRST CONFERENCE, XVI-XXII
St. Basil St. John Cassian
ARTICLES ARTICLES
WHY ASK THE FATHERS? THE DYNAMICS OF A A TALE OF TWO DEITIES
LIVING TRADITION Dr. Kelly James Clark
Dr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap POST-SECULAR FAITH: TOWARD A RELIGION OF
PANENTHEISM, THE OTHER GOD OF THE SERVICE
PHILOSOPHERS Dr. Fred Dallmayr
Dr. John W. Cooper TRIUNITY, CREATION AND AESTHETIC
THE OPENNESS OF GOD AND THE HISTORICAL RATIONALITY
JESUS Dr. Michael Hanby
Dr. Samuel Lamerson JACQUES MARITAIN ON THE CONSCIOUSNESS
SAME AS IT EVER WAS: THE FUTURE OF OF CHRIST
PROTESTANTISM IN THE GLOBAL NORTH Dr. Patrick Doering
Dr. D. G. Hart DEVELOPING A RETROACTIVE HERMENEUTIC:
A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY: THE HARLOT JOHANNINE THEOLOGY AND DOCTRINAL
AND THE CHURCH (1 CORINTHIANS 5-6) DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Tom Holland Dr. Myk Habets
A RECENT HISTORY OF THE ORDINARY CHRISTOLOGY AND THE RELATIONAL JESUS
UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM Dr. J. Lyle Story
Raymond W. Belair, JD THE POSTMODERN CONDITION AS A
PRAXIS THEOLOGIES AND THE PROJECT RELIGIOUS REVIVAL
WELCOME SUDANESE REFUGEE COMMUNITY Dr. Ryan McIlhenny
Dr. Joan Mueller, OSC THE BODY AND HUMAN IDENTITY IN
BOOK REVIEWS POSTMODERNISM AND ORTHODOXY
Scott Prather, MTS
TEACHING NEW DOGS OLD TRICKS:
RECONSIDERING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
IN A POSTMODERN SOCIETY
Dr. Paul D. Jacobs
BOOK REVIEWS

ATI Vol2 No1 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ATI Vol2 No1 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AMERICAN

Theology, Culture & History

ISBN: 978-1-60608-459-5 (Print)

5729 France Avenue South

Book Reviews Editor

Manuscript submissions should be addressed to the General Editor. Emailed submissions

Theology (Biblical, philosophical, historical, and systematic).

Requirements. Submissions should conform to the following standards:

Volume 2, No. 1., January 15, 2009

THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM 173

FROM THE EDITOR1

Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality Against Open Theism

THE THEOLOGY OF GERALD OCOLLINS AND

The Theology of Gerald OCollins

Oxford University Press, 1995), 49-53.

search of understanding.9 The transcendental experience/revelation establishes the

Theology (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1993), 9.

Christs Resurrection (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987), 209.

(Herefordshire: Gracewing, 1996), 1.

The incarnation involves a divine being who is by definition eternal,

23 Gerald OCollins, The Incarnation: The Critical Issues, in The Incarnation: An

University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 3.

vol. 11 (2002): 3-4.

MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001), xii.

LATE HAVE I LEFT THEE: A REFLECTION ON AUGUSTINE THE

and on the Spirit of Jansenism (Chicago and London, 1995).

6 Cf. George Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism (AMS, 1965) p. 126.

ratiocination see Widengren pp. 135-144.

. . . an excellent example of scholarship and of philosophy,

This is a wellcrafted, erudite and engaging study. . . . [It]

Perfectly at home in the literary, theological, and

The Rev. Dr. John L. McKenzie

JESUS ON THE BIG SCREEN1

of the Christ (2008). Reprinted her by kind permission of IVP Academic.

Profoundly Catholic Sensibilities, Christianity Today, March 2004.

found at The Passion of the Christ: Assessment by Conservative Christians, <www.religioustoler

Polebridge Press, 1997), p. 163.

Screen, pp. 233-63.

16 Stern, Jefford and Debona, Savior on the Silver Screen, p. 63.

18 Cecil B. DeMille, Autobiography of Cecil B. DeMille, p. 275.

Michael Berenbaum (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), p. 109.

America: A History (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), p. 380.

26 History of the Project, The Jesus Film Project <www.jesusfilm.org/aboutus/history.html>.

found at The Passion of the Christ: Assessment by Conservative Christians, www.religioustolerance

in Oceanside/Carlsbad, California and is a Th.M. candidate at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.

Concordia Publishing House, 1977), 24.

finding possible points of commonality between confessional Lutheran orthodoxy and

8 Cited in ibid., 132.

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 9495.

an open-and-shut case. For the opponents openly Judaize and openly

23 The Book of Concord, 223.

Preservation of Luthers Legacy, Bibliotheca Humanistica & Reformatorica Volume XXIV

All ceremonies and ecclesiastical usages are free in themselves, as ever.

50 Cited in Nischan, Ritual and Protestant Identity, 144.

A layman should look at the Ten Commandments in his catechism and

Reformation Germany. Church History 53 (1984): 1729.

Palatinate (PhD diss., Drew University, 1995), 17172.

vols. (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1997), 2:360.

expounded in the narratives of the birth of Christ, as that is dealt with in

(December 1954): 33954.

2. They must not be superstitioussuch as may easily lead men astray, so as

93 Ursinus, Commentary, 574.

Reformation Classics 4 (Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), 90.