Creegan’s abstract suggests that the Creator is affirmed both in the created world and in the development of the creation as seen in its present situation and where it will be heading in the future. This she said is arguably seen in the recent insights and discovery in biology which are more compatible with the evangelical faith than with the theories of Darwin and those who champion his beliefs (p.499). The writer’s case in point is that the presence of God, both as the Creator and Sustainer of all that is in the world, in the processes of creation, even in secondary evolutionary ones, is apparent and embedded. She attempted to bridge the gap between verifying the presence of God in the created world then and now, while at the same time affirming the veracity of some of the theories in the evolution narrative as advocated by biologists, especially those which fall under the newer insights on creation itself.
While some theologians easily dismiss evolution as hostile to the Christian faith, Creegan, a systematic theologian, whose forte is in science/theology interface and ecotheology, expounded that there is a link between the two and here she justifies her abstract. Creegan at the outset sets the tone for warranting God’s omnipresence in his creation, and in secondary evolutionary causes, obscure as it may appear. This is crucial since it is important to affirm that God’s presence is discernable in the world even behind the secondary evolutionary processes. Her take on the problem of theodicy, which is a result of Darwin’s theory, claiming that God is imperceptible in the evolutionary perspective, is of good value. She insisted the fact that God is eternally Other, yet his immanence, is undoubtedly in command. Creegan’s thesis provides the believers at present who are weary of the world’s dismissal of the Creator and His role in the process of secondary evolutionary causes, a relief and a hope at the reality of God’s work in nature. It holds up the orthodox belief in the Creator God, who is intimate with his creation, without dismissing the arguments posed by biologists who, as part of their newer understanding, see teleology as now a basic and a key concept in understanding life itself.
Creegan’s dialogue between theology and newer biologies is something fresh for Christians to consider. It does not immediately dismiss the claims of those who are opposed to God’s presence in the creation but deemed it best to constructively argue and challenge the pressing doubts of the skeptics. This she successfully expounded by saying that biology as a science is on a paradigm shift, becoming less and less Darwinian in its approach and perspective. It is quite interesting that the writer’s thought on this so-called “shift” caused her to return to the roots of her belief, citing the mystery of the Trinity, the hidden and revealed God, and the supernatural acts of the Creator in the natural, as the vital facets in one’s understanding of God transforming nature. Whereas some theologians have veered away from being biblical in their ideas, to the extent of accommodating the secular, Creegan stayed true to her belief and she kept her arguments intact with the orthodox faith.
Two improvements, however, to say the least, can be made in her thesis. First, she could have been more specific as to which parts of the evolutionary history are to be affirmed as congruent and thus attest to the Christian faith. The vagueness of the statement may leave some asking for more proof than she already has. Evolution is seen for centuries as an adversary of the faith and this is such a sensitive issue for many. Had Creegan been more perceptive of this thought and somehow became more conscious of generalizations, would her argument be more convincing.
Secondly, she could have been more careful stating that the “understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and the promise of as-yet-unknown mechanisms” (pp. 502) could well resonate with theological concerns, since, there is no certainty in this. The concern of secular proponents of evolutionary processes is not to affirm God’s presence in nature, but in most cases to dismiss it, so it holds no guarantee of being theologically compatible. Though it might brush aside the strict concept of Darwin’s conviction, it gives no assurance that it will echo the orthodox faith. What the writer articulated is every Christian’s hope, yet, to no avail can we say that God’s discernability in nature is to be proved by these evolutionary mechanisms.
The challenge of a few biologists to Darwin’s belief would not entail in a shift of belief and understanding of the majority, unless, science proves them wrong. It could somehow strike as an intelligent challenge, yet, for Creegan to say that potential understanding on evolution would generally be in favor of the Christian tenets about God being hidden and revealed in nature is not too convincing. The current understanding of evolutionary mechanism, suffice to say, even though it might be more theological than Darwinian in approach, will not make the experts of science, the atheists and the skeptics altogether, change their view on Gods presence in creation.
That being said, Creegan’s proposal is imperative to a believer’s understanding of how the world sees God in the process of creation. It is a successful attempt at bringing the orthodox view in dialogue with the present assumptions of the secular world about God’s activity in nature. The biblical view of the immanence and transcendence of God is given priority in understanding his approach to his creation. This is significant since her reformulation of the Christian theology of God’s work in creation is not at odds with our reformed belief, but a contemporary reconstruction of it to accommodate interactions with the challengers of the faith, without compromising any of our belief in God, the Creator.
Creegan’s thesis will help us to rethink our beliefs without lambasting the doubts of cynics but giving them a credible and intelligent explanation of God’s foremost participation in creation both then and now. Yet, it is remarkable that Creegan’s response, undaunted and firm, cautious yet confident, is what the Christendom needs at present. Her dialogue with the world’s skeptics proves that it is possible to reformulate our Christian faith to suit the intellectual needs of the time yet staying grounded to orthodoxy. This dialogue must continue, evidently knowing that we are giving reasons for our faith. Creegan’s approach gives us a reason not to be afraid to dialogue with the skeptics since we know that we are in the truth. Her work gives assurance to those whose faith is irresolute and makes those who are certain unfazed by the challenges that science may bring to orthodoxy.
The supernatural God cannot be inconsistent with his creation. His ways of leading nature to where it should go, including the visible and invisible processes, is congruous to who He is as the Creator and the Sustainer of all. Creegan’s work therefore is a classic model of tying in the secular belief in the process of creation and the sacred conviction of God’s power, his transcendence and immanence in his creation. Yet, no matter how Christians would try to reconstruct their beliefs, lay their cards on the table, and try to convince the skeptics, it is significant to realize that our inability to see God’s work in and around us is a foremost result of the fall of humanity to sin. With this, the separation of God and man is only solved with the regenerating power of the Spirit, leading us to open our hearts to who God, the Creator, really is. This is and will always be the starting point in leading people to believe in God’s awesome work and overarching approach and purpose to his magnificent creation.
Copyright, 2011
You can check a portion of her paper here: http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-christian-theology-of-evolution-and-participation/
Jul 31, 2011
Jul 28, 2011
GOD IS HERE: REFLECTIONS ON GOD'S SELF-DISCLOSURE
The existence of God has been a concern of debate among theologians and philosophers over time. It is so crucial that the entire faith of Christians is anchored on the existence of what they believe is the reality of a Higher Being- a Supreme One at that, who has revealed himself to humanity in a lot more ways so we could grasp or somehow understand his existence.
Christians believe that God has revealed himself so the sinful man could somehow have a proof of his authenticity. However, we have to make a clear distinction here that not all professing Christians agree on the mode of God revealing himself to his creatures. Theologians have argued on this matter and they themselves have their own convictions as to the hows of it. Majority of believers concur to the idea that God has revealed himself in two ways: the general revelation, where the knowledge of God is available in nature, history and the constitution of the human being (Erickson, p. 179); and special revelation which deals with God’s manifestation of himself to particular persons at particular times, leading them to a redemptive relationship with God (Erickson, p. 201).
Erickson discussed natural theology having the idea that “it is possible, without a prior commitment of faith to the beliefs of Christianity, and without relying on any special authority, to come to a genuine knowledge of God on the basis of reason alone, such as an institution (the church) or a document (the Bible), which refers to the human capacity to discover, understand, interpret and evaluate the truth” (Erickson, p.181).
On the other side, Karl Barth, a famous theologian scrapped the idea of both general revelation and natural theology stating that the knowledge of God is confined in Jesus because by nature, revelation is redemptive. There is then no salvific power that can be seen neither in the case of general revelation nor in natural theology. A moderate view of this is Thomas Aquinas’ idea that it is possible to prove God’s existence by pure reason through cosmological and teleological arguments but he did not discredit special revelation in trying to assert his convictions.
However, the problem with general revelation as a means to a genuine knowledge of God has spawned a lot of disputes and discussions especially with the idea of natural theology. Taking things into consideration, the definition of natural theology is likely, I believe, to bluntly disregard the idea of the Bible being the Word of God where we can understand and know him in a way that general revelation nor pure reason cannot guarantee. The possibility to come to a genuine knowledge of God in this case is unfeasible. No matter what it is, reason can only say much and can give us so little of what we need so as to know what God is like. The idea it could give us about God would not suffice for us to come into a realization that we need him. It could only make us believe that there is indeed a Creator but it won’t lead us to seeking him for who he is and wanting to live in him and for him. It is not to say that reason cannot do anything. It is one thing to come to a realization that indeed there is a higher Being, probably, a supreme one, who made all things to come into existence, but it is another thing to know his personality and a lot more about him through the mode of special revelation.
History serves as a witness that man has been searching for that Higher Power and that millions have endeavored to do so, yet, their attempts led them to becoming polytheistic. They have become idolatrous because, their search for the ‘Supreme Being’ unfortunately led them to deceptive religions which disregard the Creator God of the Bible. This is the reason why countless cults and religions of different sorts throughout history have come and gone. The influx of world religions, searching and seeking for the authentic God was caused by man’s desire to complete his awareness and knowledge of Him. Millions believe that there is a Supreme Being, yet, knowing the reality of who and what God is has caused a lot of confusion among them. Down the road, millions of people seeking for the truth sadly turned into agnostics or even worse, atheists.
If a genuine knowledge of God can be found in pure reason, then why is it that through reason itself, millions have become skeptics of the existence of God, if not atheists? It is not then proper to label reason as a perfect manner to come to a genuine knowledge of God. Reason can be misleading sometimes and if caught unaware, could be simultaneously deceptive and destructive.
Granting that general revelation is enough to come to a genuine knowledge of God, the problem now lies heavily on the purpose of special revelation especially as we talk about the incarnation of God the Son. It is a deliberate disregard to the reason for which Christ came. We must keep in mind that God has laid out his plan for his Son to come so we would understand more how he would want to keep his relationship with us. Beyond doubt, to say that special revelation, in all its forms and ways, is limiting the work of God if not playing God himself.
I cannot but reject the notion of natural theology about the possibility of acquiring an unadulterated understanding of God without the Bible or the guidance of the church. It is a conscious rejection of God’s message to his people through the Scriptures and through Christ, who is the perfect revelation of God himself. To quote Hebrews 1: 1-3a, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being..”
These passage clearly indicates that the particular revelation of God, in Christ is a necessity and cannot be brushed aside. Those who disdain the particular revelation of God should rethink of what they definitely mean in saying that general revelation is enough to have a genuine knowledge of God, when God himself thinks otherwise.
The problem with natural theology is that it depends solely on reason to come to a genuine knowledge of God, and the fact that reason as it is defined here is the human capacity to discover, understand, interpret and evaluate truth. The statement here is problematic in itself. It wasn’t able to clearly delineate what a genuine knowledge of God really means. Secondly, the dilemma is that it is difficult to rely on human reason to do all these arduous tasks because we have to be reminded that humanity is marred by sin and this hinders us from delineating the truth from the lies, from discovering and uncovering facts and distinguish them from fictitious beliefs.
Nevertheless, categorically denying the need for special revelation is tantamount to believing that the incarnation of Christ is uncalled-for, which is a deliberate blasphemy to the Christian faith and would lead to the dispensability of the cross. It does not guarantee salvation for humanity and would never lead our souls to be at peace with God.
Karl Barth was quick to refute this idea believing that the knowledge of God is solely confined in special revelation. He was convinced that revelation in its very essence should be redemptive. In this case, neither general revelation nor natural theology satisfactorily fit in the category. This idea of Barth, seemed to be influenced by his background and he tried to fit in his belief on revelation in order to attack the Nazi Government in Germany (Erickson, p. 188). At the outset, the predicament in this thought is that it has become subjective. And just for this reason, Barth has totally disregarded that nature can give us a glimpse of the reality of a higher Being.
However, interpretations of passages which speak literally of man’s idea of a Supreme Being, whom Scripture writers call God, cannot be vilified. And Barth has no excuse but to come to terms with this truth. I am in total disagreement with Barth’s proposition for I am firm that God’s disclosure of himself, whether it be general or special is redemptive in its purpose. Barth, like natural theologians, was not able to demarcate as well what knowledge of God has to mean.
Revelation is God’s way of communicating with his people. Whether it be general or special revelation, the aim of the whole of it is for man to have an idea of God which the general revelation provides; and from that idea, man will be able to enter into a redemptive relationship with Him which special revelation furnishes, specifically, through the incarnation of Christ and through His revealed Word. I see no reason for the two not to go together and affirm each other since the whole “revelation plan” of God is encapsulated in these two modes. General revelation bridges our way to the special revelation of God. There are truths about who God is as we can see in his general revelation and these truths affirms the legitimacy of what God is as established by the special revelation.
Passages in the Bible definitely warrant that general revelation is a way in which man can have an idea of the existence of a Person greater than him. This is succinctly expressed in Rom. 1:20 where it says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” It is therefore unacceptable to say that general revelation has no use in giving us an idea of a Supreme Being, for even the Scriptures, which is a mode of God’s special revelation of himself, affirms this statement.
What we need to do instead is to believe that these two modes of revelation are co-dependent and complementary with each other. They need each other in order to reveal the purposes of God in humanity. Both are redemptive in purpose for each gives reason to believe in God and know the purpose for which he has revealed himself. It cannot be said that only special revelation is redemptive in purpose because the climax of it is the incarnation of God himself in Christ. We have to keep in mind that general revelation is in itself a prelude for the plan of redemption and a crucial part of God to make himself known.
I firmly believe that having an idea of God and having a clear knowledge of him is what differentiates special and general revelation. To distinguish these two: General revelation gives us an idea of the existence of a Supreme Being but its insufficiency leads us to the special revelation of God, which is enough to introduce us to a deeper knowledge and lead us into a redemptive relationship with God. Though they are different in mode, it cannot be denied that they are similar in purpose.
God definitely made himself known to man. Wherever we go, we can see the glory of himself through his works. And when we look back at the cross, for which we see the love of God himself as revealed in Jesus his Son, the more we understand how great and how immeasurable his wonder is.
Be as it is, still, we cannot say that we fully know and understand him. General and special revelations nonetheless give mystery to the Supreme Being we call the God of the Bible, for his ways and his mind is unfathomable. However, as we continue to live our precious lives for God, we ought to be reminded that sinful as we are, God loved us this much to rescue us from the pit of destruction and he has made the first step for our relationship with him to be renewed. We can just thank him that our inadequacies and transgressions did not stop him from revealing his glory and holiness to us albeit our trespasses.
Copyright, Erland De Vera Palean
March, 2009
sidenotes are from Erickson's Systematic Theology book, 3rd. ed.
Christians believe that God has revealed himself so the sinful man could somehow have a proof of his authenticity. However, we have to make a clear distinction here that not all professing Christians agree on the mode of God revealing himself to his creatures. Theologians have argued on this matter and they themselves have their own convictions as to the hows of it. Majority of believers concur to the idea that God has revealed himself in two ways: the general revelation, where the knowledge of God is available in nature, history and the constitution of the human being (Erickson, p. 179); and special revelation which deals with God’s manifestation of himself to particular persons at particular times, leading them to a redemptive relationship with God (Erickson, p. 201).
Erickson discussed natural theology having the idea that “it is possible, without a prior commitment of faith to the beliefs of Christianity, and without relying on any special authority, to come to a genuine knowledge of God on the basis of reason alone, such as an institution (the church) or a document (the Bible), which refers to the human capacity to discover, understand, interpret and evaluate the truth” (Erickson, p.181).
On the other side, Karl Barth, a famous theologian scrapped the idea of both general revelation and natural theology stating that the knowledge of God is confined in Jesus because by nature, revelation is redemptive. There is then no salvific power that can be seen neither in the case of general revelation nor in natural theology. A moderate view of this is Thomas Aquinas’ idea that it is possible to prove God’s existence by pure reason through cosmological and teleological arguments but he did not discredit special revelation in trying to assert his convictions.
However, the problem with general revelation as a means to a genuine knowledge of God has spawned a lot of disputes and discussions especially with the idea of natural theology. Taking things into consideration, the definition of natural theology is likely, I believe, to bluntly disregard the idea of the Bible being the Word of God where we can understand and know him in a way that general revelation nor pure reason cannot guarantee. The possibility to come to a genuine knowledge of God in this case is unfeasible. No matter what it is, reason can only say much and can give us so little of what we need so as to know what God is like. The idea it could give us about God would not suffice for us to come into a realization that we need him. It could only make us believe that there is indeed a Creator but it won’t lead us to seeking him for who he is and wanting to live in him and for him. It is not to say that reason cannot do anything. It is one thing to come to a realization that indeed there is a higher Being, probably, a supreme one, who made all things to come into existence, but it is another thing to know his personality and a lot more about him through the mode of special revelation.
History serves as a witness that man has been searching for that Higher Power and that millions have endeavored to do so, yet, their attempts led them to becoming polytheistic. They have become idolatrous because, their search for the ‘Supreme Being’ unfortunately led them to deceptive religions which disregard the Creator God of the Bible. This is the reason why countless cults and religions of different sorts throughout history have come and gone. The influx of world religions, searching and seeking for the authentic God was caused by man’s desire to complete his awareness and knowledge of Him. Millions believe that there is a Supreme Being, yet, knowing the reality of who and what God is has caused a lot of confusion among them. Down the road, millions of people seeking for the truth sadly turned into agnostics or even worse, atheists.
If a genuine knowledge of God can be found in pure reason, then why is it that through reason itself, millions have become skeptics of the existence of God, if not atheists? It is not then proper to label reason as a perfect manner to come to a genuine knowledge of God. Reason can be misleading sometimes and if caught unaware, could be simultaneously deceptive and destructive.
Granting that general revelation is enough to come to a genuine knowledge of God, the problem now lies heavily on the purpose of special revelation especially as we talk about the incarnation of God the Son. It is a deliberate disregard to the reason for which Christ came. We must keep in mind that God has laid out his plan for his Son to come so we would understand more how he would want to keep his relationship with us. Beyond doubt, to say that special revelation, in all its forms and ways, is limiting the work of God if not playing God himself.
I cannot but reject the notion of natural theology about the possibility of acquiring an unadulterated understanding of God without the Bible or the guidance of the church. It is a conscious rejection of God’s message to his people through the Scriptures and through Christ, who is the perfect revelation of God himself. To quote Hebrews 1: 1-3a, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being..”
These passage clearly indicates that the particular revelation of God, in Christ is a necessity and cannot be brushed aside. Those who disdain the particular revelation of God should rethink of what they definitely mean in saying that general revelation is enough to have a genuine knowledge of God, when God himself thinks otherwise.
The problem with natural theology is that it depends solely on reason to come to a genuine knowledge of God, and the fact that reason as it is defined here is the human capacity to discover, understand, interpret and evaluate truth. The statement here is problematic in itself. It wasn’t able to clearly delineate what a genuine knowledge of God really means. Secondly, the dilemma is that it is difficult to rely on human reason to do all these arduous tasks because we have to be reminded that humanity is marred by sin and this hinders us from delineating the truth from the lies, from discovering and uncovering facts and distinguish them from fictitious beliefs.
Nevertheless, categorically denying the need for special revelation is tantamount to believing that the incarnation of Christ is uncalled-for, which is a deliberate blasphemy to the Christian faith and would lead to the dispensability of the cross. It does not guarantee salvation for humanity and would never lead our souls to be at peace with God.
Karl Barth was quick to refute this idea believing that the knowledge of God is solely confined in special revelation. He was convinced that revelation in its very essence should be redemptive. In this case, neither general revelation nor natural theology satisfactorily fit in the category. This idea of Barth, seemed to be influenced by his background and he tried to fit in his belief on revelation in order to attack the Nazi Government in Germany (Erickson, p. 188). At the outset, the predicament in this thought is that it has become subjective. And just for this reason, Barth has totally disregarded that nature can give us a glimpse of the reality of a higher Being.
However, interpretations of passages which speak literally of man’s idea of a Supreme Being, whom Scripture writers call God, cannot be vilified. And Barth has no excuse but to come to terms with this truth. I am in total disagreement with Barth’s proposition for I am firm that God’s disclosure of himself, whether it be general or special is redemptive in its purpose. Barth, like natural theologians, was not able to demarcate as well what knowledge of God has to mean.
Revelation is God’s way of communicating with his people. Whether it be general or special revelation, the aim of the whole of it is for man to have an idea of God which the general revelation provides; and from that idea, man will be able to enter into a redemptive relationship with Him which special revelation furnishes, specifically, through the incarnation of Christ and through His revealed Word. I see no reason for the two not to go together and affirm each other since the whole “revelation plan” of God is encapsulated in these two modes. General revelation bridges our way to the special revelation of God. There are truths about who God is as we can see in his general revelation and these truths affirms the legitimacy of what God is as established by the special revelation.
Passages in the Bible definitely warrant that general revelation is a way in which man can have an idea of the existence of a Person greater than him. This is succinctly expressed in Rom. 1:20 where it says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” It is therefore unacceptable to say that general revelation has no use in giving us an idea of a Supreme Being, for even the Scriptures, which is a mode of God’s special revelation of himself, affirms this statement.
What we need to do instead is to believe that these two modes of revelation are co-dependent and complementary with each other. They need each other in order to reveal the purposes of God in humanity. Both are redemptive in purpose for each gives reason to believe in God and know the purpose for which he has revealed himself. It cannot be said that only special revelation is redemptive in purpose because the climax of it is the incarnation of God himself in Christ. We have to keep in mind that general revelation is in itself a prelude for the plan of redemption and a crucial part of God to make himself known.
I firmly believe that having an idea of God and having a clear knowledge of him is what differentiates special and general revelation. To distinguish these two: General revelation gives us an idea of the existence of a Supreme Being but its insufficiency leads us to the special revelation of God, which is enough to introduce us to a deeper knowledge and lead us into a redemptive relationship with God. Though they are different in mode, it cannot be denied that they are similar in purpose.
God definitely made himself known to man. Wherever we go, we can see the glory of himself through his works. And when we look back at the cross, for which we see the love of God himself as revealed in Jesus his Son, the more we understand how great and how immeasurable his wonder is.
Be as it is, still, we cannot say that we fully know and understand him. General and special revelations nonetheless give mystery to the Supreme Being we call the God of the Bible, for his ways and his mind is unfathomable. However, as we continue to live our precious lives for God, we ought to be reminded that sinful as we are, God loved us this much to rescue us from the pit of destruction and he has made the first step for our relationship with him to be renewed. We can just thank him that our inadequacies and transgressions did not stop him from revealing his glory and holiness to us albeit our trespasses.
Copyright, Erland De Vera Palean
March, 2009
sidenotes are from Erickson's Systematic Theology book, 3rd. ed.
GOSPEL WHAT? JESUS WHO? REFLECTIONS ON CONTEMPORIZING THE GOSPEL MESSAGE
With the recent postmodern turns in the society, it has been said that it is indeed inevitable to contemporize the message of the Gospel. By contemporizing the message we mean that what we proclaim is made understandable today but still retaining its content and biblical doctrine (Erickson, p.115 ).
More than two thousand years ago, the bearer of that message, Jesus Christ, who is in fact the message himself came to the world. In his earthly life and ministry, throngs of people placed their faith in him, who in turn proclaimed the gospel. As the world gradually changed as inked in the historical books and found in the values of the contemporary people, the gospel seemed to lose its appeal and sadly, only few and few people are being proselytized and incorporated into the Body of Christ.
Theologians and church leaders alike as God’s people cannot just sit down in the laurels of their academic resumes and ecclesiastical posts and as a response to the current situation deemed it necessary that the gospel be contemporized so as to make it attractive and palatable to the contemporary hearers.
It is true that the world when the likes of biblical greats such as Moses, Joshua, King David, Elijah and Jesus lived is substantially different from our world today. And it is with much regard that the Christians of today must do something that the gospel might be understood in the contemporary culture, be it contemporizing the gospel.
The question of relevance of the gospel message is on the upfront of this issue. The language of the Bible appears so untenable that at the outset of presenting it to an unbeliever, it would seem to be meaningless. The message has to be understood in the language of the present society.
Rudolf Bultmann however went a step further with this. For him, it is not only a problem of the language that the Bible presents but its entirety is somehow mythical. The statement that any apologetic Christian may get freaked out with, is that Bultmann believes that this mythological view of the world was the general view of reality at the time the Bible was written (Erickson, p.117). Pondering upon these statements, one would have the thought that the demythologizer (allow me to use this term to refer to Bultmann) is certainly confused with his stand on the Scriptures as the eternal Word of God. Asserting that the Bible merely reflects a first century perspective is tantamount to believing that its contentions are as good as passé in this postmodern age. I would categorically lambast this idea for it is not just biblically sound but all the more worldly it its approach.
If, as he believes even the Christian cannot understand the language and the content of the Scriptures as he or she reads it, it is still not sufficient to conclude that it is mythological in its very essence. Allowing the Word of God to speak to us is embracing the truth that there is indeed a mystery that needs to be unlocked by the power of the Holy Spirit through the human teacher (in the case of preaching the Gospel)- those people in whom we can rely to dig deep into it and to pour out unto us a fresh look at God’s Word in a whole new and contemporary perspective. Translations of the Bible are useful tools in order to contemporize the Gospel message without staining the truth as found in God’s Word. We need to admit that the languages of the first century Christians and of the present world are poles apart. Yet, this acknowledgement does not necessarily recognize that for this reason alone, we conclude that the biblical statements about God, the world, humanity and others are first century truths only. I articulate with much steadfastness that the Word of God, timeless in its very nature, has eternal principles and truths though the words may be a little off for the readers of today.
Granting that today’s readers of the Scriptures are finding it hard to dissect the Bible...we must realize that thousands of years back, not all hearers of it understood what it meant in their context. Considering this matter, we must accept the reality that spiritual blindness is one immense factor why people throughout ages have not discovered the gem that is in the Scriptures and not just because they do not understand the language per se.
It is personally difficult to comprehend why in the world Bultmann would even try to demythologize the biblical facts which have been the anchor on which the Christian faith stands. It is a way of giving in to the pressures of the world that the message that we have is in fact already obsolete in the present. It is denying the truths that thousands of Christian martyrs have given up their lives for. It is forfeiting the message of hope and to the worst degree nullifying the purpose of the cross and the message of Christ, who is the person of the Scripture itself.
The meaningfulness of the Scriptures is not dependent on the language that it was written but in the truth that it asserts and the life-changing principles that had made it as the most-loved book in ages past and present. On the other hand, contemporizing its language for the hearers at hand is indispensable to make its message clearer and explicable.
The biblical language is admittedly difficult to understand. One can read it over and over again yet get nothing but a headache on the right hand and a growing confusion on the other. This statement has been accepted generally. Still and all, the language of the Bible functions in its own context but the timeless truths are universal at its core.
We cannot compromise this truth because the heart of the gospel is not on its language but on the message that it wants to communicate. The present language that we are using will be a passé years and years from now, but it wouldn’t mean that we are talking about mythologies just because the people of the future generations would not understand our use of words today. Language will always be a part of human communication and has to be understood in its own context.
In the attempt to contemporize theology, two approaches have been proposed. One is that of the translators who with the use of the contemporary language try to retain the original content of the message and the other, being the transformers who make serious changes in the gospel message in order to relate it to the modern world.
One of the most popular ways of transforming the Gospel message was proposed by the “Death of God” theology which had its way in the middle of the 1960s. This was represented by the likes of Thomas J. J. Altizer, William Hamilton and Paul Van Buren. These so-called Christian theologians, if they can be termed as such were convinced that there is the unreality of the idea of God (Erickson, p. 124).
In response to the idea that there is a need to contemporize the message, I cannot but agree on it. However, one has to be very careful in using a certain approach in doing it. In the case of the translators, there is not much an argument because they strive in making the Gospel message tenable for the present hearers without compromising the message itself. However, their counterpart, the transformers, are somewhere near becoming heretics or are already such, for the gravity of the changes that they make in order to fit into the mold of the present world is unjustified much less, unbiblical.
Liberal theologians espouse this idea and they believe that it is not really necessary to conserve or preserve the biblical doctrines believing that the quintessence of Christianity is not bound in the dogmas held by primeval Christians (Erickson, p.123).The liberals’ attempt to contemporize the message is a blatant disrespect to the purity of the Gospel since the doctrines that the early Christians held dear are the same dogmas that were painstakingly passed on to us and in which we stand now as a body of Christ. To say that we need not preserve nor conserve the biblical doctrines is as good as saying that we need not the Scriptures to live as God’s people.
The Bible is the very Word of God in which he dealt with his people whom he used to express his love for us throughout history. These people then passed on their faith to us, as inspired by God himself producing his Word, the Scriptures, which is his message for us today and our rule for life and living. In the process, God’s people preserved and conserved his words as they knew it necessary for them to live according to God’s ways.
In saying this, we must go back to the truth that the doctrine of the Bible is the light in which we walk our talk as believers. It is impossible to live as Christians without having a life-giving principle to live by. The liberal theologians pose a great danger in committing a blunder to the Christian walk with God as given in His word. It is a shameless insult to the words of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 where he says,
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
It is as if saying that we don’t need to walk as Christians or worse, there is no need to be a Christian. Their attempt to contemporize the gospel message is a clear act of disregard to the Christian basis of life and faith and is unbiblical and worldly in its purpose.
The “Death of God” theology all the more made the transformers cling to the unbiblical way of contemporizing the gospel message. At the core of it is idea is the unreality of God or the word God (Erickson, p.125). I cannot ignore the fact that these are theologians who are championing this kind of belief. Their statement itself is a deliberate attack on the existence of God.
However, the statement also shows a great contradiction of ideas that they are espousing. They believe that there is a possibility of the unreality of God or the word God. Yet, the phrase “death of God” assumes that there was a God in the first place. How can someone die who in the first place have not existed in time and space at all?
If the idea of God is untenable as what they say, it is because the finiteness of our human mind cannot comprehend the truth of the existence of an infinite, all-powerful, sovereign God. But it doesn’t mean that there is no God or that God will die anytime soon upon proving that he does not exist in reality. If we say that He does not exist because we haven’t experienced him, we have to realize that experience (as we define it in human terms) does not discount the existence of God.
The rationale behind contemporizing the message should be treated with much care and sensitivity because if we are to make serious changes in the message just to fit in to the context of the present age, it might lead to changing the message itself as what the liberal theologians did and are doing. It is a deliberate compromise to the purity and the heart of the gospel message.
To question the relevance of the Gospel is unacceptable if not uncalled for. For in fact, the gospel has always been relevant and will always be relevant. The problem lies not on the message itself but on two factors: first, the gospel language; and second, which is the most important one- the gospel bearers of today. I would concur to the fact that the language of the Bible is clearly difficult to understand. From this perspective, those who have the know-how of making it understandable should do so with much respect to the Word of God.
However, the life of those who proclaim the message of Jesus Christ should by far be a clearer message than the language itself. And as Christians who profess and confess Jesus, we need to make a daily reality check if the message of our lives speaks of love and hope to the contemporary hearers of the Gospel in need of the light of our Savior.
*****
Copyright: Erland De Vera Palean
April 2009
sidenotes are from Erickson's Systematic Theology book, 3rd. ed.
More than two thousand years ago, the bearer of that message, Jesus Christ, who is in fact the message himself came to the world. In his earthly life and ministry, throngs of people placed their faith in him, who in turn proclaimed the gospel. As the world gradually changed as inked in the historical books and found in the values of the contemporary people, the gospel seemed to lose its appeal and sadly, only few and few people are being proselytized and incorporated into the Body of Christ.
Theologians and church leaders alike as God’s people cannot just sit down in the laurels of their academic resumes and ecclesiastical posts and as a response to the current situation deemed it necessary that the gospel be contemporized so as to make it attractive and palatable to the contemporary hearers.
It is true that the world when the likes of biblical greats such as Moses, Joshua, King David, Elijah and Jesus lived is substantially different from our world today. And it is with much regard that the Christians of today must do something that the gospel might be understood in the contemporary culture, be it contemporizing the gospel.
The question of relevance of the gospel message is on the upfront of this issue. The language of the Bible appears so untenable that at the outset of presenting it to an unbeliever, it would seem to be meaningless. The message has to be understood in the language of the present society.
Rudolf Bultmann however went a step further with this. For him, it is not only a problem of the language that the Bible presents but its entirety is somehow mythical. The statement that any apologetic Christian may get freaked out with, is that Bultmann believes that this mythological view of the world was the general view of reality at the time the Bible was written (Erickson, p.117). Pondering upon these statements, one would have the thought that the demythologizer (allow me to use this term to refer to Bultmann) is certainly confused with his stand on the Scriptures as the eternal Word of God. Asserting that the Bible merely reflects a first century perspective is tantamount to believing that its contentions are as good as passé in this postmodern age. I would categorically lambast this idea for it is not just biblically sound but all the more worldly it its approach.
If, as he believes even the Christian cannot understand the language and the content of the Scriptures as he or she reads it, it is still not sufficient to conclude that it is mythological in its very essence. Allowing the Word of God to speak to us is embracing the truth that there is indeed a mystery that needs to be unlocked by the power of the Holy Spirit through the human teacher (in the case of preaching the Gospel)- those people in whom we can rely to dig deep into it and to pour out unto us a fresh look at God’s Word in a whole new and contemporary perspective. Translations of the Bible are useful tools in order to contemporize the Gospel message without staining the truth as found in God’s Word. We need to admit that the languages of the first century Christians and of the present world are poles apart. Yet, this acknowledgement does not necessarily recognize that for this reason alone, we conclude that the biblical statements about God, the world, humanity and others are first century truths only. I articulate with much steadfastness that the Word of God, timeless in its very nature, has eternal principles and truths though the words may be a little off for the readers of today.
Granting that today’s readers of the Scriptures are finding it hard to dissect the Bible...we must realize that thousands of years back, not all hearers of it understood what it meant in their context. Considering this matter, we must accept the reality that spiritual blindness is one immense factor why people throughout ages have not discovered the gem that is in the Scriptures and not just because they do not understand the language per se.
It is personally difficult to comprehend why in the world Bultmann would even try to demythologize the biblical facts which have been the anchor on which the Christian faith stands. It is a way of giving in to the pressures of the world that the message that we have is in fact already obsolete in the present. It is denying the truths that thousands of Christian martyrs have given up their lives for. It is forfeiting the message of hope and to the worst degree nullifying the purpose of the cross and the message of Christ, who is the person of the Scripture itself.
The meaningfulness of the Scriptures is not dependent on the language that it was written but in the truth that it asserts and the life-changing principles that had made it as the most-loved book in ages past and present. On the other hand, contemporizing its language for the hearers at hand is indispensable to make its message clearer and explicable.
The biblical language is admittedly difficult to understand. One can read it over and over again yet get nothing but a headache on the right hand and a growing confusion on the other. This statement has been accepted generally. Still and all, the language of the Bible functions in its own context but the timeless truths are universal at its core.
We cannot compromise this truth because the heart of the gospel is not on its language but on the message that it wants to communicate. The present language that we are using will be a passé years and years from now, but it wouldn’t mean that we are talking about mythologies just because the people of the future generations would not understand our use of words today. Language will always be a part of human communication and has to be understood in its own context.
In the attempt to contemporize theology, two approaches have been proposed. One is that of the translators who with the use of the contemporary language try to retain the original content of the message and the other, being the transformers who make serious changes in the gospel message in order to relate it to the modern world.
One of the most popular ways of transforming the Gospel message was proposed by the “Death of God” theology which had its way in the middle of the 1960s. This was represented by the likes of Thomas J. J. Altizer, William Hamilton and Paul Van Buren. These so-called Christian theologians, if they can be termed as such were convinced that there is the unreality of the idea of God (Erickson, p. 124).
In response to the idea that there is a need to contemporize the message, I cannot but agree on it. However, one has to be very careful in using a certain approach in doing it. In the case of the translators, there is not much an argument because they strive in making the Gospel message tenable for the present hearers without compromising the message itself. However, their counterpart, the transformers, are somewhere near becoming heretics or are already such, for the gravity of the changes that they make in order to fit into the mold of the present world is unjustified much less, unbiblical.
Liberal theologians espouse this idea and they believe that it is not really necessary to conserve or preserve the biblical doctrines believing that the quintessence of Christianity is not bound in the dogmas held by primeval Christians (Erickson, p.123).The liberals’ attempt to contemporize the message is a blatant disrespect to the purity of the Gospel since the doctrines that the early Christians held dear are the same dogmas that were painstakingly passed on to us and in which we stand now as a body of Christ. To say that we need not preserve nor conserve the biblical doctrines is as good as saying that we need not the Scriptures to live as God’s people.
The Bible is the very Word of God in which he dealt with his people whom he used to express his love for us throughout history. These people then passed on their faith to us, as inspired by God himself producing his Word, the Scriptures, which is his message for us today and our rule for life and living. In the process, God’s people preserved and conserved his words as they knew it necessary for them to live according to God’s ways.
In saying this, we must go back to the truth that the doctrine of the Bible is the light in which we walk our talk as believers. It is impossible to live as Christians without having a life-giving principle to live by. The liberal theologians pose a great danger in committing a blunder to the Christian walk with God as given in His word. It is a shameless insult to the words of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 where he says,
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
It is as if saying that we don’t need to walk as Christians or worse, there is no need to be a Christian. Their attempt to contemporize the gospel message is a clear act of disregard to the Christian basis of life and faith and is unbiblical and worldly in its purpose.
The “Death of God” theology all the more made the transformers cling to the unbiblical way of contemporizing the gospel message. At the core of it is idea is the unreality of God or the word God (Erickson, p.125). I cannot ignore the fact that these are theologians who are championing this kind of belief. Their statement itself is a deliberate attack on the existence of God.
However, the statement also shows a great contradiction of ideas that they are espousing. They believe that there is a possibility of the unreality of God or the word God. Yet, the phrase “death of God” assumes that there was a God in the first place. How can someone die who in the first place have not existed in time and space at all?
If the idea of God is untenable as what they say, it is because the finiteness of our human mind cannot comprehend the truth of the existence of an infinite, all-powerful, sovereign God. But it doesn’t mean that there is no God or that God will die anytime soon upon proving that he does not exist in reality. If we say that He does not exist because we haven’t experienced him, we have to realize that experience (as we define it in human terms) does not discount the existence of God.
The rationale behind contemporizing the message should be treated with much care and sensitivity because if we are to make serious changes in the message just to fit in to the context of the present age, it might lead to changing the message itself as what the liberal theologians did and are doing. It is a deliberate compromise to the purity and the heart of the gospel message.
To question the relevance of the Gospel is unacceptable if not uncalled for. For in fact, the gospel has always been relevant and will always be relevant. The problem lies not on the message itself but on two factors: first, the gospel language; and second, which is the most important one- the gospel bearers of today. I would concur to the fact that the language of the Bible is clearly difficult to understand. From this perspective, those who have the know-how of making it understandable should do so with much respect to the Word of God.
However, the life of those who proclaim the message of Jesus Christ should by far be a clearer message than the language itself. And as Christians who profess and confess Jesus, we need to make a daily reality check if the message of our lives speaks of love and hope to the contemporary hearers of the Gospel in need of the light of our Savior.
*****
Copyright: Erland De Vera Palean
April 2009
sidenotes are from Erickson's Systematic Theology book, 3rd. ed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)