Book Review (RJS) - Four Views on the Historical Adam, Part 2

Adam Both Archetypal and Historical (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/06/05/john-walton-adam-both-archetypal-and-historical-rjs/

by RJS

June 5, 2014

Comments

The second section of the new book from the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam looks at John Walton’s view of Adam. Walton presents an archetypal view of Adam derived from Scripture and consistent with a number of scientific views of human origins. Again in this first post I will outline Walton’s view without much comment. This will be followed by a post that discusses the responses of the other three contributors and the rejoinder by original author along with some of my own observations.

Walton's Historical-Archetypal Adam

John Walton emphasizes at several points throughout the chapter that he views Adam and Eve as historical figures. He opens with this affirmation.

My view (John Walton) is that Adam and Eve were real people in a real past; they were individual persons who existed in history. The basis for this conclusion comes from the fact that in the Old Testament Adam becomes part of a genealogy and in the New Testament a real event featuring real people is the clearest reading to explain the entrance of sin and death.

Nevertheless I also believe that the biblical text is most interested in Adam and Eve as archetypes – those who represent humanity. In particular the “making” accounts in Genesis 2 reflect their roles as archetypes and therefore give us no scientific information about human origins. (p. 89-90)

In this post we will leave aside Adam and Eve as real people for the most part and look at the archetypal view Walton outlines. Walton believes that the authors of Genesis and in the New Testament were more interested in the role of Adam and Eve as archetypes than as unique individuals. “An archetype serves as a representative of all other members of the group, thus establishing an inherent relationship“ and “an archetype can be a real person with a real past, although not all archetypes are.” (p. 90)

Adam as an archetype in Genesis.

The first reason is that the man is called Adam [using the word] "a-dam" is the Hebrew word for "mankind". But the Hebrew language developed after the Exodus and the events described in the text are long before the development of Hebrew as a language. Walton concludes that it cannot be viewed as the actual name of the man. The name is archetypal and everything this man does in Genesis 2-3 is archetypal – “as a representative for all humanity or on behalf of all males.” (p. 91)

Second – the man is formed from the dust. There are issues with the material formation of man from dust:

• Dust certainly doesn’t refer to chemical composition (not much water or carbon in dust), and

• Dust cannot be sculpted the way clay can.

The text doesn’t speak to material composition or to the mechanics or process of human origins. Walton sees the importance in the man being mortal (from the dust) and designed for a role. The tree of life in the garden is the antidote for mortality – it would be unnecessary if the man was created inherently immortal.

Third – the man is taken and placed in a garden.

"I would propose that Adam, the archetypal human, is being removed from the everyday realm of human existence and placed in a specially prepared place (the mouth of the rivers) as a blessing. If other people are around, he is being elected from them to play a special role. (p. 94)"

Genesis 4 makes it reasonable to assume that other people are around.

Fourth – the man is assigned a priestly role in the garden. The words translated “work and take care of” in the NIV can be interpreted as agricultural work, although the word šamar translated “take care of” does not generally refer to such agricultural work. It is used in the Pentateuch to refer to priestly service in sacred space, guarding sacred space.

What about Eve?

Walton also sees an archetypal role for Eve. Genesis 2:21-22 doesn’t refer to the material origin of Eve, but to a vision showing Adam that he should view Eve as a part of himself. Eve is not a “reproduction partner” but “a coworker in the task of maintaining and expanding sacred space.” (p. 103)

The Theological Meaning

The archetypal role of Adam and Eve brings attention to the theological teaching of Genesis (pp. 102-103)

1. Humankind was created mortal.

2. Humankind was provisioned by God.

3. Humankind was given the role of serving in sacred space

(which implies relationship with God).

4. Humankind genders work together to fulfill their God-given role.

5. Humankind was divided into male and female so we would seek to

reconnect in a new familial relationship.

Number 4 is worth some elaboration.

Walton concludes that the countercultural gender roles in Genesis 2 makes the “Adam as Israel” interpretation of Genesis 2-3 unlikely (Peter Enns supports such a view in his book The Evolution of Adam).

Eve is a coworker in maintaining and expanding sacred space and Israel does not have women priests. “Genesis 1-3 shows no sign of patriarchy, and the archetypal woman is given a role as coworker in sacred space, placed in equal relationship with God.” (p. 104)

A Final Note on Walton's Interpretation of Genesis

1. Walton does not see Genesis 1 and 2 as synoptic accounts of creation with Genesis 2 providing more detail on day 6. This is a typical conservative Christian reading that is not really supported by the structure of the two passages.
2. Nor does Walton see the accounts as competing traditions that “came to be incongruently next to each other with unresolved tensions” (p. 109) as critical scholars often claim.
3. Rather he sees them as sequential. Genesis 2 is a sequel to Genesis 1. Genesis 2 recounts events that could have occurred much later.

In such a case, Adam and Eve would not necessarily be envisioned as the first human beings, but would be elect individuals drawn out of the human population and given a particular representative role in sacred space. (p. 109)

The New Testament. According Walton the New Testament authors saw Adam and Eve as real people, “but the theological use that is made of them is archetypal.”

The reference in Acts 17:26 (From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth) refers to Noah not Adam – the nations are delineated after the flood.

Romans 5:12-14 uses Adam in an archetypal manner – he is a pattern of Christ and he represents all people. Because this passage affirms an event where sin and death entered human experience Walton believes that it supports a historical Adam. However, it says nothing about the transmission of sin, biological relationships, or material discontinuity with the rest of creation.

1 Cor 15:22 (For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive) makes a comparison. This is a representative comparison not determined by biological relationship.

1 Cor 15:45 (So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.) In this passage the biblical point is to contrast and compare and to exalt Jesus – not to make claims about biology.

2 Cor 11:3 implies a historical Eve, “but it refers to her archetypally as an analogy.” (p. 107)

1 Timothy 2:13-14 “Adam and Eve are used as archetypes to make a point about all of humanity, here providing an illustration of how a deceived woman can lead a man into error.” (p. 107)

The major passages of concern are those in Romans and 1 Cor 15 where comparison is made with Christ. While Walton sees this comparison as relating to a unique individual, he does not think that the use as archetype requires biological descent from Adam or that it says anything about material origins. We are not all descended from Christ in a material sense and as the “last Adam” Jesus was neither the only or the last man in biological descent.

Closing Thoughts

Walton concludes his chapter with a hypothetical scenario looking at how all the elements that he sees in the text of Genesis and the uses of this text in the New Testament might be brought together. I am not going to summarize this in the post. The bottom line for Walton is that “the Bible is not revealing science, it is revealing God” (p. 116). This includes the material origins of humanity – this is not a subject that the ancient Israelites were concerned with and it is not a subject that the Bible speaks to directly. It is the archetypal role of Adam and Eve that takes center stage in every instance. “The theology is important, but the theology is built on the archetypal profile – we are all represented in Adam and Eve” (p. 117).

Scientific discussions of human origins can be separated from the theological message of the text. Clearly a godless [...if evolution is deemed atheistic. However its origins were expressly deistic per the era of its development. Meaning that the theory was based in a theistic premise as to how God created this universe. Hence, it was never atheistic until atheists began to use the science as a bully pulpit against Christianity. - re slater], purposeless [...not so. Contemporary views of evolution do now hold to its purposefulness within its science of teleology and origins. - re slater] view of evolution and human origins is not consistent with Scripture [a select view stated by YEC but not the view of Evolutionary Creationists - re slater], but a powerful and sovereign God can work through evolutionary process as he works through other so-called “natural” processes including weather and embryonic development.

The next post on this book will look at the responses from Denis Lamoureux, Jack Collins, and William Barrick along with some of my own reflections.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Responses to Archetypal Adam (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/06/17/responses-to-archetypal-adam-rjs/

by RJS

June 17, 2014

Comments

In the last post on the new book in the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam we looked at John Walton’s view of Adam as Both Archetypal and Historical (the original post is found at the link). In the post today I will summarize the responses offered by Denis Lamoureux, Jack Collins, and William Barrick (following the order used in the book) and offer some of my own comments as well.

DL's Rebuttal

Denis Lamoureux notes his great respect for John Walton, but also disagrees with the way he structures a significant part of his argument. He does not find Walton’s argument that Genesis refers to function rather than material creation compelling. Both Walton and Lamoureux see ancient science, especially ancient cosmology in the text, and both agree that this is “incidental” although Walton phrases it differently. The real difference seems to be in the understanding of the intent of the ancient authors.

As I (RJS) understand it:

1. Walton’s hypothesis is that the intent of the ancient author was to describe the shaping of function from chaos and that the material description, using the ancient understanding of science, is incidental to this intent. The functional message carries theological importance and is the intended message of the author (divinely inspired by God).

Lamoureux believes that the intent of the ancient author or editor was to describe creation including material origins. The author was inspired by God, but God accommodated his message to the understanding of the ancient Near Eastern audience and used their understanding of science and and of origins to carry the inspired theological message.

2. The different view that Walton and Lamoureux take toward accommodation leads to distinct differences in the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and in the approach each takes to the question of Adam. Lamoureux suggests that Walton stretches the interpretation because he views the text as free from error in the intended message of the author. Examples include Walton’s argument that dust refers to the mortality of Adam rather than the material origins of Adam, the assignment of a priestly role or function for Adam, and his suggestion that the creation of Eve refers to a vision given to Adam while in a deep sleep.

Lamoureux takes the position that the description of Adam and Eve largely reflects an ancient understanding of material origins and is incidental to the theological message. There is no reason to view Adam and Eve as historical persons or as archetypes. (Both Walton and Lamoureux seem to agree quite closely on the intended theological message of the text.)

Collin's Rebuttal

C. John (Jack) Collins also respects Walton. But he also thinks that Genesis describes material origins, and is not sure why Walton emphasizes a distinction between functional and material origins. Collins most significant disagreement however, is with the idea that Adam need not be the first human or the only human, but “a real person given a real test, as representative and archetype of all humankind.” (p. 130) In particular Collins disagrees with the idea that humans before or contemporary with Adam could have been engaging in activities which we would call sinful. In his view moral innocence – inherent in the words good and upright (Genesis 1; Eccl 7:29, 1 Tim 4:4) – preceded the first sin, and this seems contrary to Walton’s proposal.

Collins also finds a representative view troublesome because it “raises serious questions about the justice of God in accounting the sin of this couple to their contemporaries, without having some kind of natural relationship between them.” (p. 130)

He concludes:

“In sum then, I do not see how Walton’s approach accounts for the unified origin of humankind, or for the foreignness of sin in God’s plan.” (p. 131)

Collins goes on to bring up the nature of humans as the image of God. The image of God is not, in his view, merely a role and function, but a material difference between humans and other creatures.

"[W]e must see the image as something that clearly distinguishes humans from every other “living creature.” Whatever distinctive functions we humans exercise, and especially “dominion” (Gen 1:26; cf. Ps 8), requires that we have the capacities that everyone recognizes as setting us apart from other animals. The “special creation” whatever material it operates on, must impose new features on both body and soul of the new creation; the body-soul unity is needed as the vehicle of this image. (p. 131)"

This criticism of Walton’s emphasis on function and role is interesting – and at odds with the argument of J. Richard Middleton and many other Old Testament scholars as well. We have capacities which set us apart from other animals, but these capacities are distinctive in quantity and aggregate, not as unique features unknown in the rest of the animal kingdom. The features are not, many agree, what define us as the image of God.

Barrick's Rebuttal

William Barrick appreciates some of the insights that Walton brings regarding the importance of function and role. He does not see that this is separate from the importance of Adam as the biological head of the human race. He also emphasizes what he sees as the importance of the seminal headship of Adam. He holds that we are endowed with a sin nature at conception transmitted from our parents and we go astray in the womb. “Only the unique conception and birth of Jesus kept him free from receiving the same sin nature.“ Thus the special creation of Adam from the dust, without sin and the virginal conception of Jesus are ideas tied together in Barrick’s view.

According to Barrick, Walton’s archetypal view of Adam and his emphasis on function rather than material origins does not do justice to a number of significant theological concepts. It does not do justice to the character of God (“wholly truthful, all-powerful, and all-wise“). It does not do justice to the nature of mankind (fallen through Adam), and thus to the necessity of Christ’s sacrificial death to restore a “fallen mankind and a sin-corrupted and Creator-cursed universe.” Functionality is part of the meaning of the text but … “The physical creation reflects the moral character of God, and his goodness cannot be limited to mere function.” (p. 138)

Walton's Rejoinder

John Walton responds to a number of the issues raised by Lamoureux, Collins and Barrick. Here I will concentrate only on the theological issues raised by Collins and Barrick. These really center on the same issues surrounding the entry of sin into the world and the propagation of this sin to all mankind. Although Collins sees this as, perhaps, a cultural phenomenon rather than a biological one (he makes analogy to the passing down of citizenship), he does think that it requires a connection between Adam and Eve and all subsequent humanity. Barrick finds the direct biological relationship of importance because sin is passed down in the womb in the very nature of the incipient human.

Walton looks at the scriptures raised by Collins and argues that these passages do not require original sinlessness, only original innocence. The unified origin of humankind is addressed in Genesis 1 – in the creation of humans in the image and likeness of God, male and female. We could rip Genesis 2-3out of the Bible and still have a united humanity (Walton doesn’t put it quite like this, but the point is the same). The spread of sin is another issue – but Walton admits he doesn’t have a complete answer. Of course the inheritance model also has serious issues as Ronald Osborne points out clearly in Death Before the Fall.

Final Comments

Walton’s approach brings much important insight into the meaning and significance of Genesis 2-3. His emphasis on the archetypal importance of Adam and Eve appears well supported. I have long found his insights into the Garden of Eden enlightening and his emphasis on the priestly role of Adam helps to shape this out. I do agree with Lamoureux that he stretches some points in order to preserve a “truthfulness” in the text, but overall I find his approach more helpful than Lamoureux’s. This is not because I agree with everything Walton says (especially his discussion of the origin of Eve) but because he wrestles with the meaning of the text in the ancient context whereas Denis seems to simply brush it aside as ancient science.

Collins (and I assume Barrick) sees the new heaven and the new earth as a restoration of Eden [more of a cyclical than helical view of eschatology. Walton's is the helical view. - re slater]. Walton has what I consider a view more consistent with the whole sweep of scripture. The move from Eden to new heaven and new earth is a story of sacred space reaching its intended culmination. We are not returning to Eden but moving forward to God’s intended climax.

The view of Adam and the spread of sin is a problem that is more significant if we view Eden as God’s intended climax rather than His starting point. We don’t live in a plan gone wrong requiring an emergency patch (Christ) – although we do live in a world tainted by the inability of humans, from the beginning, to maintain God’s sacred space. A view of Adam as archetypal is more (in my opinion) consistent with the whole sweep of scripture than a view of Adam as the origin of sin (as Bouteneff put it in Beginnings – Adam is the original sinner, not the origin of sin).

continue to -

Part 1 - Denis O. Lamoureux: Evolutionary Creationism

Part 2 - John H. Walton: YEC but Ancient Cosmology

Part 3 - C. John Collins: Modified YEC

Part 4 - William D. Barrick: YEC

Book Review (RJS) - Four Views on the Historical Adam, Part 1

Amazon Link

The Historical Adam (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/15/the-historical-adam-rjs/

by RJS

May 15, 2014

Comments

One of the most contentious issues involved in the discussion of the intersection between Christian faith and evolutionary biology is the question of Adam: historical, unique, mythical, archetypal, representative, something else?

The recent clarification of the statement of faith at Bryan College is an example of the depth of feeling this issue can evoke. Lines are drawn in the sand.

According to a story at timesfreepress.comthe statement of faith reads:

"...that the origin of man was by fiat of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis; that he was created in the image of God; that he sinned and thereby incurred physical and spiritual death..."

There is no specified method, and this is a statement with which most of us would agree although we might differ on the idea behind “incurred physical death.” The clarification leaves less room for conversation or for agreement.

"We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. They are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life forms."

Many who would, without reservation, sign the statement of faith cannot in good conscience agree with the clarification. One who, for example, agrees with John Stott in his commentary The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World would be fine under the original statement, but now with the “clarification” would be unwelcome on the faculty of Bryan.

For those who are wondering, Stott has a section in his commentary on The historicity and death of Adam (p. 162-166). He finds that “the narrative itself warrants no dogmatism about the six days of creation, since its form and style suggest that it is meant as literary art, not scientific description.” He also finds it likely that the snake and trees are meant to be understood symbolically in Gen 2-3. He holds to the historicity of the original human pair 6000-10,000 years ago largely because of the genealogies (esp. Luke 3) — but not in the sense you might think. He does not deny any of our scientific findings – and will even accede to the possibility (probability) that creation from dust is a Biblical way of saying that God breathed his divine image into an already existing hominoid. But…

"The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God.(p. 164)"

With respect to the intent of Paul in Romans 5: 12 – and so death spread to all men, because all sinned – Stott comments:

"There can be only one explanation. All died because all sinned in and through Adam, the representative or federal head of the human race. (p. 152)"

Adam’s “federal” headship extended outwards to his contemporaries and onwards to his descendents and this includes, according to Stott, the consequences of Adam’s original sin.

Digging deeper once again. The question of Adam remains one worth posts and discussion. A recent book, Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), provides us an opportunity to dig into the question of Adam once again.

The contributors to the book include Denis Lamoureux, John Walton, C. John Collins, and William Barrick. The views presented range from:

• no historical Adam (Lamoureux)

• young earth creation with Adam as the unique father of the entire human race some 6000 years ago or so (Barrick)

• John Walton and Jack Collins fall between these two views, with Collins likely closest to the view of Stott described above.

In their essays the contributors were asked to respond to three questions [by the editors]:

1. What is the biblical case for your position, and how do you reconcile it with passages and potential interpretations that seem to counter it?

2. In what ways is your view more theologically consistent and coherent than any other view? In particular the contributors were asked to relate their view of Adam to their view of revelation, inerrancy, creation, and redemption in Christ.

3. What are the implications your view has for the spiritual life and public witness of the church and individual believers, and how is your view a healthier alternative for both?

Each contributor provides his own view, responds to the views of the other three, and offers a rejoinder to response of the others to his essay.

---

The final two chapters provide pastoral reflections by Greg Boyd and Philip Ryken concerning the implications of our view of Adam in the life of the church.

Over the next few months we will look in more detail at the views offered by Lamoureux, Walton, Collins, and Barrick and the objections they raise in response to the views of the others and finally the pastoral responses. If interested, pick up a copy of the book and join in the conversation.

* * * * * * * * * * *

No Historical Adam? (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/20/no-historical-adam-rjs/

by RJS

May 20, 2014

Comments

Last week I introduced a new book from the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam. The contributors to the book include Denis Lamoureux, John Walton, C. John Collins, and William Barrick. The views presented range from no historical Adam (Lamoureux) to young earth creation with Adam as the unique father of the entire human race some 6000 years ago or so (Barrick). John Walton and Jack Collins fall between these two views.

As we work through this book I will first put up a post presenting one of the views. This will be followed by a post that discusses the responses of the other three contributors and the rejoinder by original author along with some of my own observations. The first chapter is by Denis O. Lamoureux and this is where we start.

---

Dr. Lamoureux is an Associate Professor of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta (UA) in Edmonton. He received his BS in 1976 from UA, a DDS from UA in 1978 and then changed directions – receiving his MDiv and Master of Christian Studies degrees from Regent College Vancouver in 1987 and his Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Theology–Science and Religion, from the University of St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto, in 1991.

Returning once again to science he received a Ph.D. from UA in Oral Biology–Dental Development and Evolution. Several years ago I posted on Denis Lamoureux’s book Evolutionary Creation (between November 2010 and January 2011). His chapter in the current book is a condensation of the much more detailed argument put forth in the larger book.

The Message-Incident Principle

Dr. Lamoureux’s position on the relationship between science and scripture centers on the Message-Incident Principle. The ancient views of science, including ancient views of origins are incidental to the theological truths conveyed in scripture. This can be expressed as accommodation – God accommodated his message to the understanding of his people. [What this means is that God] did not introduce new science in scripture only to be understood many millenia later. We do not find and, upon reflection, should not expect, concordance between our current science and cosmology and that reflected incidentally in scripture.

There are many examples that can be used to illustrate this principle. One example used by Lamoureux in this chapter is the last portion of the great Christological hymn found in Philippians 2:9-11.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

The line “in heaven and on earth and under the earth” reflects the ancient view of a three tiered universe where “under the earth” uses a word καταχθόνιος that refers to those departed souls who dwell in the world below, that is in the underworld. This verse indicates that Paul, along with his contemporaries, accepted the 3-tier universe. According to Lamoureux:

"In the case of Philippians 2:10-11, the Message of Faith reveals the lordship of Jesus over the entire creation, and the incidental ancient science is the 3-tier universe. (p. 50)"

Another example of the presence of ancient science or cosmology in scripture is found in the description of the second and fourth days of creation in Genesis 1. The firmament that God puts in place to separate the waters above from the waters below was viewed by the ancient Israelite audience in common with the other ancient Near Eastern cultures as a solid boundary structure. On day four the greater and lesser lights and the stars were placed in the firmament. The concept of the relationship between earth, sky, stars, sun, moon, was completely different from the understanding we have today.

The sun god tablet or tablet of Shamash dating from the 9th century BC
illustrates the firmament (bottom layer) with the stars, waters, and then
the throne of Shamash in the heavens.

Dr. Lamoureux points out that this structure is also reflected in Psalm 104:2-3.

The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment;

he stretches out the heavens like a tent

and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.

According to Lamoureux:

Now what are we to do with these passages in Genesis 1 about the creation of the heavens? The Message-Incident Principle allows us to appreciate that the Holy Spirit accommodated to the level of the ancient Hebrews and used the science-of-the-day in order to reveal the inerrant spiritual truth that God created the visually dominant blue “structure” overhead with the sun, moon, and stars “embedded” in it. The Message of Faith remains steadfast for us today: the Creator made the visual phenomenon of the blue sky and all the heavenly bodies. (p. 53)

These three examples (the 3-tier universe in Philippians 2; the firmament in Genesis 1; a and the upper chambers on the waters in Psalm 104) only scratch the surface. Many (many) more examples of ancient “scientific” understanding expressed in the text of Scripture could be given. Some we hardly notice, assuming them to be figurative when they are not, others are obscured by the word choice of the translators. Taken together they should help us to understand the nature and form of the text of Scripture. The ancient science, when it appears, is not an “error” but the way that God has accommodated his message to the understanding of finite human beings.

What about Adam?

Denis Lamoureux believes that the same principle of accommodation applies to the description of the origin of life and the creation of Adam. The Message of Faith in Genesis 1 is that God is the Creator of life, but the unique creation of kinds and even the words used to express this (the land produces living creatures in v. 24 as it produces vegetation in v. 11 – not exactly the way we think about the creation of animals) are incidental.

The de novo creation of Adam from the dust is another example of ancient “science of origins” in the text. The creation of humans from dust or clay is found in a number of ancient Near Eastern texts. The de novo creation of humans reflects an ancient phenomenological understanding of origins. The Message of Faith is that God formed, loves, and cares for humanity.

Turning to the New Testament references, Lamoureux believes that Paul, with an ancient phenomenological view of origins and immersed in the Scriptures, thought Adam was a unique individual. However, the conferment argument (that Paul’s belief in Adam confers (or requires) a historical Adam) is challenged by the 3-tier universe of Philippians 2 and by the wide-spread occurrence of ancient understandings of “science” throughout scripture. Few would argue that Paul’s understanding of cosmology or geography confers that view on the nature of reality.

The second argument that is often raised is consistency – because Paul compares Adam and Jesus consistency demands that either both, or neither are, historical individuals. The consistency argument fails to distinguish the person of Jesus witnessed by the disciples and many others from the nature of the text of Genesis 2-3 which describes events that predate the written accounts by millenia. Lamoureux also points out that it is the name of Jesus to which every knee in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld should bow. Few would think that consistency requires belief in both Jesus and a 3-tier universe.

So when it comes to Adam, Lamoureux concludes:

"The Divine Book of Words reveals that humans are the only creatures who bear the image of God, and only humans are sinful. I suspect that the manifestation of these spiritual realities coincides with the appearance of behaviorally modern humans about 50,000 years ago. (p. 64)"

…

To conclude, [says Lamoureux]: 

"I do not believe that there ever was a historical Adam. Yet he plays a pivotal role in Holy Scripture. Adam functions as the archetype of every man and woman.…"

Adam’s story is our story. … To understand who we truly are, we must place ourselves in the garden of Eden. The non-historical first Adam is you and me. But the Good News is that the historical Second Adam died for our sins and frees us from the chains of sin and death. Amen. (p. 65)

In the next post on the book we will look at the responses offered by John Walton, Jack Collins, and William Barrick to Denis Lamoureux’s view.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Responses to No Historical Adam (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/27/responses-to-no-historical-adam-rjs/

by RJS

May 27, 2014

Comments

Last Tuesday I put up a summary (No Historical Adam?) of Denis Lamoureux’s chapter in the new book from the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam. Denis presents a view that we should recognize the Adam story as an accommodation to an ancient Near Eastern understanding of human origins.

In today’s post we will look at the responses offered by the other three contributors, John Walton, Jack Collins, and William Barrick, and at the rejoinder offered by Denis Lamoureux.

---

John Walton's Rebuttal

John Walton’s main points of disagreement come with the rather black-and-white way that Denis constructs his argument. He agrees that there is accommodation in Scripture and that “concordism is hermeneutically suspect.”

Concordism - The attempt to correlate the bible and modern science by considering

the days to be aeons of perhaps millions of years each. It does not work: Light was

created before the sun and even the earth (v 10) and the planets were created before

the sun. (Wimmer p. 68)

He has noted in the past that there is no new science in Scripture (the purpose is not to reveal science). He believes that Denis oversteps when he jumps from ancient Near Eastern ideas about the origin of life and the origin of humans to the conclusion that there was no historical Adam. [In actuality, Denis posits this based upon evolutionary evidence. His reference to the NE view was one of textual parallelism between ancient thought and ancient Hebrew thought, contra Walton's inferences. - re slater]

Because the account of the creation of Adam contains elements that come from an ancient Near Eastern understanding of origins Lamoureux states “And since ancient science does not align with physical reality, it follows that Adam never existed.” On this point Walton replies:

"I disagree that his conclusion follows inevitably from his observation. It does not follow that Adam never existed; only that the forming account does not record the forming of a single unique individual.(p. 68)"

Lamoureux also argues that consistency of interpretation, recognizing ancient views of astronomy in the origin of the heavens suggests that we should recognize ancient science-of-the-day in the origin of Adam. Here Walton responds:

"Even if the “forming” narrative about Adam has some parallels in the ancient Near East, that does not prove that Adam is not a real person in a real past. At most it would indicate that the forming account may be an accommodation – that does not mean that the role of Adam is an accommodation. After all there is no one with the role of Adam in the ancient Near East. (p. 68)"

Walton also disagrees with the way Lamoureux deals with Jesus’s reference to Genesis 1-2 and to Paul’s use of Adam in the New Testament. I think the argument concerning the way Jesus references Genesis 1-2 is a dead end trail in the discussion of the historicity of Adam and I’ve written on this before (Jesus on Adam and Eve). Lamoureux could, perhaps, make the point more clearly but Walton’s criticism is off the main point as well.

Paul’s use of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are more significant sticking points. Lamoureux doesn’t dig deeply into the theological significance of Adam here and Walton challenges him:

“The question is not whether Paul believed that Adam was a real person. Paul believed many things that (in our estimation) were not true about the natural world. The question is whether Paul invested theological significance in his belief.” (p. 69)

C. John Collins' Rebuttal

C. John Collins also agrees with a number of the points made by Lamoureux, but thinks he has followed a style of reasoning that is oversimplified. Lamoureux sees either-or options where Collins would prefer to explore the possibility that there are other alternatives or some middle ground. Collins doesn’t think that talk about “ancient science” is the best way to refer to the kind of language we find in Genesis 1-3 or in many other places in Scripture preferring the category “ordinary language.” He concludes:

"Actually, we cannot tell, one way or the other, simply from the words used, exactly what the writers “believed” about the world. For the most part, it doesn’t even matter: these authors successfully refer to the things they describe – and enable us to picture them – without making any kind of strong claim about the processes. As near as I can tell, the age and shape of the earth play no role in anyone’s communication in the Bible. (p. 75)"

The reason for this is that the age and shape of the earth simply were not questions they thought about at any significant level.

On a theological level, Collins doesn’t think that the truths Lamoureux sees in his application of the Message-Incident principle “do adequate justice to the overarching narrative element in the Bible.” Most importantly:

“The Bible as a whole, not just Genesis, portrays sin as something that at some point made an entrance into God’s good world, but does not belong here and will one day be eradicated.” (p. 79)

William Barrick's Rebuttal

William Barrick’s critique of Lamoureux is a little hard to deal with. He takes a young earth view and finds Lamoureux’s account troubling on many levels. He makes the argument that “Questioning the accuracy of one part of scripture always puts the whole of Scripture in doubt.” (p. 80)

He points out that Calvin and Luther held to a young earth and that modern evangelicals holding any form of an old-earth are taking a path contrary to such long-trusted commentators and theologians. He makes the point that it is inconsistent to accept some miracles but not others – for example it is inconsistent to accept water to wine at Cana but not the special creation of Adam.

He is also concerned with the difficulty of establishing “the sinfulness of all mankind without exception” if Adam and Eve are not the unique historical parents of the human race.

These are not surprising points. We must deal with the nature of scripture as trustworthy and “able to make [us] wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” and with the long history of biblical interpretation that accepted a young earth.

How Barrick elaborates his concerns is somewhat befuddling to me. I’ll give only a couple of examples here:

Barrick objects to Lamoureux’s use of Psalm 139:13-14 (For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made) as an example that there is no necessary distinction between “natural” processes that take time and the handiwork of God.

According to Barrick:

"Such procreative processes, however, do not appear to offer an equivalent parallel. According to Scripture, God did not form Adam in a preexisting mother’s womb. Genesis depicts an instantaneous special creation of one individual, Adam, from the dust of the earth. God made Eve by an equally instantaneous and special creation."

"I argue that Adam bears no resemblance to the legend of Rip van Winkle, who slept for years and awoke to find a world changed by the passing of time. For Eve to have evolved out of Adam would have taken millions of years. Adam could not have slept for eons of time while God made the woman. It would require the multiplication of many miracles to keep Adam from aging while we waited for a wife to evolve. (p. 81)"

I (RJS) have not got a clue where this last paragraph comes from. It is, quite frankly, incoherent and seems lacking in logical structure unless I am missing something not stated. The male and the female cannot evolve separately.

In his chapter Lamoureux pointed out that Jesus told the parable of the mustard seed calling it the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4:31), used an illustration of the death of a seed before germination (John 12:23-24), and describes stars falling from the sky (Matthew 24:27, 29). All of these represent ancient misunderstandings of science in some fashion – but Jesus’s point wasn’t to teach science and the illustrations make his point to his hearers quite beautifully. Barrick jumps on this:

"The parables that Jesus used in teaching the multitudes and his disciples could be his own observations of real-life people and their experiences. Lamoureux assumes that they are made up or are like old wives’ tales passed on from ancient times. It is as though Jesus could not observe and think for himself, but merely parroted traditional stories and axioms. In other words, Jesus did not raise the standard of theological consideration, but rather adopted the lower standards of the pagan world around him. (p. 83)"

I (RJS) don’t see how Barrick gets this from Lamoureux’s chapter at all. Lamoureux certainly does think that Jesus could observe and think for himself and that Jesus did raise the standard of theological consideration. The critique simply misses the point and uses what appears to be intentionally inflammatory language without really addressing the issue at hand.

I could pick up a couple of other examples – but this probably gives the picture well enough. Barrick appears convinced that all who hold to evolutionary creation (with or without a historical Adam) base their “conclusions on a full, unquestioning faith in secular evolutionary theory” (p. 84) and are leading young people astray.

DL' s Rejoinder

Denis Lamoureux responds briefly to the points raised by Walton and Collins in his rejoinder to finish this first section of the book. He points out that he and both Walton and Collins have many points of agreement. He finds the questions that Walton raises concerning Jesus’s reference to Adam and marriage somewhat inconsistent and has no objection to the terminology of “ordinary language” that Collins prefers. He is disappointed by Barrick’s response – as, quite frankly, am I.

In Summary

I (RJS) agree with John Walton and Jack Collins that Denis makes the alternatives too stark an "either-or" and that his logic is not always as conclusive as he makes it appear. His position is one valid alternative, but it may or may not be the best alternative.

My current thinking on the question of Adam is closer to the position that Denis describes than to any of the others in the book. However, I think we need to put on the table some of the positions Denis dismisses: "positions that accept evolutionary creation and include a historical Adam of one sort or another."

This whole question needs more hard work in conversation between Christian scholars and thinkers. Although I find much that I agree with in Denis’s discussion of the presence of ancient “science” in the text, I don’t think he has (yet) dealt adequately with the theological questions raised in Paul.

I also think that Denis might push the idea of accommodation a bit too hard and that Jack’s suggestion of “ordinary language” nuances the idea in a useful direction.

continue to -

Part 1 - Denis O. Lamoureux: Evolutionary Creationism

Part 2 - John H. Walton: YEC but Ancient Cosmology

Part 3 - C. John Collins: Modified YEC

Part 4 - William D. Barrick: YEC

Common Questions and Misunderstandings about Classical Arminianism, Part 2

Arminianism FAQ 2 (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…)

link to article

by Roger Olson

July 7, 2014

Comments

FAQ: What’s the difference between Arminianism and Wesleyanism?

Answer (A): Not all Arminians are Wesleyans. Certainly Arminius wasn’t! He lived a century before Wesley. 

Free Will Baptists, many Pentecostals (e.g., Assemblies of God), and Restorationists (e.g., Churches of Christ/Independent Christians) are Arminians without being Wesleyans.

But all Wesleyans (that I know) are Arminians (although not all like that label).

Wesleyans ADD to Arminianism the idea of “Christian Perfection” (which different Wesleyans define differently). Non-Wesleyan Arminians do not believe in “entire sanctification.” (Although, interestingly, my own study of Arminius has led me to think he MAY have agreed with Wesley and Wesleyans about that.)

FAQ: Does Arminianism include belief in absolute free will? If so, how could God have inspired the authors of Scripture?

A: No, Arminianism does not (and never has) included belief in “absolute free will.” Not even God has absolute free will: "God’s will is governed by his character."

Arminianism focuses on sin and salvation. It says (with regard to free will) that the sinner’s will is bound to sin until freed by God’s prevenient grace (thus, “freed will,” not “free will!”).

Arminianism includes no particular belief about whether or to what extent God manipulates the wills of men (human persons) with regard to bringing his plans (e.g., Scripture) to fruition.

FAQ: Doesn’t Arminianism rob God of his sovereignty?

A: No, not at all. It only says God is sovereign over his sovereignty. In other words, God can (and apparently does) limit his power to permit humans to oppose his will–up to a point. Everything that happens (Arminianism says) falls within the sovereign will of God–either God’s antecedent will or God’s consequent will: God’s antecedent will is that all be saved; God’s consequent will (consequent to the fall) is that all who believe be saved.

continue to -

Arminianism FAQ: Part 1

Arminianism FAQ: Part 2

Arminianism FAQ: Part 3

Arminianism FAQ: Part 4

Arminianism FAQ: Part 5

Common Questions and Misunderstandings about Classical Arminianism, Part 1

Arminianism FAQ 1 (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/07/arminianism-faq-1-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know/

by Roger E. Olson

July 4, 2014

Comments

Arminianism FAQ 1 (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…)

Today begins a summer series on Arminianism and Arminian theology. Over the past twenty plus years of promoting a correct understanding of classical Arminianism I have been asked numerous questions about the subject. There seems to be much misunderstanding about it. Here, in this series of blog posts, I will try to answer every “frequently asked question” about classical Arminianism. My aim is to keep the questions and answers clear, concise and crisp.

For those of you who are not sure about my credentials for answering questions about classical Arminianism with any authority, I can only say I have been an Arminian all my life and have dedicated the past twenty years (at least) to studying and explaining it—including in my book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (InterVarsity Press).

FAQ: What is “classical Arminianism?”

Answer (A): “Classical Arminianism” has nothing to do with “Armenia.” It is a type of Christian theology especially associated with the 17th century Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (d. 1609).

However, I also refer to it as “evangelical synergism” (“synergism” here referring to “cooperation” between God and creature) because Arminius’ beliefs did not begin with him. For example, Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier promoted much the same view almost a century before Arminius.

In brief, classical Arminianism is the belief that God genuinely wants everyone to be saved and sent Christ to live, die and rise for everyone equally. It is the belief that God does not save people without their free assent but gives them “prevenient grace” (grace that goes before and prepares) to liberate their wills from bondage to sin and make them free to hear, understand and respond to the gospel call. It is the belief that God’s grace is always resistible and election to salvation, “predestination,” is conditional: God decrees that all who believe will be saved and foreknows who will believe.

Classical Arminianism is a form of Protestant theology, so it assumes (in all of the above) that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace that cannot be merited; it can only be accepted. According to Arminius and all classical Arminians, God’s justification of sinners is “by grace [alone] through faith alone” and solely on account of the work of Christ. God’s grace in-and-through Jesus is the effectual cause of salvation/justification, but faith is the instrumental cause.

FAQ: Is Arminianism a sect or denomination?

A: It is not. But there are denominations that either assume classical Arminianism as their theology of salvation and/or have written it into their doctrinal confessions. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was an Arminian as were most of his followers. Methodism, in all its forms (including ones that do not bear that name), tends to be Arminian. (Paradoxically, Calvinist-Methodist churches once existed. They were followers of Wesley’s co-evangelist George Whitefield. But, so far as I am able to tell, they have all died out or merged with traditionally Reformed-Calvinist denominations.)

“Officially” Arminian denominations include ones in the so-called “Holiness” tradition (e.g., Church of the Nazarene) and Pentecostal one (e.g., Assemblies of God). Arminianism is also the common belief of Free Will Baptists (also known as General Baptists). Many “Brethren” churches are Arminian as well. But one can find Arminians in many denominations that are not historically, “officially” Arminian such as many Baptist conventions/conferences.

FAQ: Why identify a theology with a man’s name? Why not just be “Christians?”

A: This would be ideal, but it is too late for that.

Arminians do not venerate Arminius; he was nothing more than an especially clear expounder and defender of a biblical perspective on salvation.

Arminians only use that label to distinguish themselves from Calvinists and Lutherans—two Protestant traditions that, historically-theologically, hold to what is known as “monergism” and reject all forms of “synergism” in salvation.

“Monergism” is the belief that salvation does not involve a cooperation between God and the sinner; God saves without the sinner’s free consent.

Arminians put no stock in the label “Arminianism.” Many do not even use it. However, it is a theological category and label often misrepresented by its critics (especially conservative Calvinists), so those who know they are Arminian feel the need to defend it against false accusations and misrepresentations. 

Some who do that prefer to call themselves simply “non-Calvinist,” but that is no better than “Arminian” and is less clear (because Lutherans, for example, are also “non-Calvinist” but are often just as opposed to Arminian belief in evangelical synergism as are Calvinists).

Arminians [or Arminianism] is not a movement, party or tribe of Christians. They are simply Protestant Christians who, unlike many others, believe in grace-restored freedom of the will to resist [God] or accept [God's] saving grace.

FAQ: Why is there now a rising interest in Arminianism? Why have blogs and books about a “man-made theology?”

A: Beginning around 1990, Arminianism and Arminian theology came under new pressure from outspoken proponents of Calvinism—belief that God elects people to salvation unconditionally and that Christ died only for the elect and saving grace is irresistible.

These new, aggressive Calvinists were not willing to take a “live and let live” approach to evangelical differences of theology but have attempted to marginalize, even sometimes exclude, Arminians from evangelicalism—portraying Arminianism as more “Catholic” than truly “Protestant.” One leading Calvinist theologian, editor of an evangelical monthly magazine, said in print that one can no more be an “evangelical Arminian” than one can be an “evangelical Catholic.”

Over the past twenty-to-thirty years Calvinism has been on the rise in especially American evangelical Christianity and along with that rise has come an increasingly negative portrayal of Arminians as defective Christians and not truly, authentically evangelical.

However, American evangelicalism had long been ecumenical—including Protestant Christians of many theological perspectives. Now, suddenly, many Reformed/Calvinist evangelicals were calling Arminianism “humanistic,” “man-centered,” “heterodox,” “on the precipice of heresy,” “not honoring the Bible,” etc., etc. Gradually, evangelical Arminians felt the need to defend their theology against misconceptions, misrepresentations and distortions.

Every theology is “man-made,” including Calvinism. But that is not to say theologies are solely human inventions. They are people’s best attempts to interpret the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Christian tradition and reason.

Many Calvinists claim that Calvinism is a “transcript of the gospel,” but Arminians reject that claim for any theology including Calvinism and Arminianism. We (theologians, interpreters of the Bible) are but “broken vessels” (as the Apostle Paul called himself) seeking to follow the light of God’s Word wherever it leads.

FAQ: Isn’t there a “middle ground” between Calvinism and Arminianism?

A: No, there isn’t, that is logically coherent.

In fact, Arminianism is the middle ground between Calvinism and “semi-Pelagianism” which is the heresy (so declared by the Second Synod of Orange in 529 and all the Reformers agreed) that sinners are capable of exercising a good will toward God unassisted by God’s grace.

(1) With semi-Pelagianism (still an extremely popular view in American Christianity) Arminians believe sinners have free will, but with (2) Calvinists Arminians believe free will in matters of salvation must be given by God through prevenient, assisting grace. [Man,] left to [himself], without the liberating power of [God's] grace, sinners cannot, or will not, exercise a good will toward God. But, under the pressure of liberating, enabling grace many do reach out to God who has already reached down and into them, calling them to repent and believe.

I - Against semi-Pelagianism, and with Calvinism, Arminianism believes and teaches that the initiative in salvation is God’s and that all the ability in salvation is God’s.

II - But against Calvinism, and with semi-Pelagianism, Arminians believe sinners can resist God’s grace and, in order to be saved, must accept it freely.

continue to -

Arminianism FAQ: Part 1

Arminianism FAQ: Part 2

Arminianism FAQ: Part 3

Arminianism FAQ: Part 4

Arminianism FAQ: Part 5

Thomas Jay Oord - Explaining Love to an Alien

Some scientific studies suggest that human beings are innately selfish and that Christian virtues

like self sacrifice are a delusion. In this intriguing volume, esteemed theologian Thomas Jay Oord

interprets the scientific research and responds from a theological and philosophical standpoint,

providing a state of the art overview of love and altruism studies. He offers a definition of love

that is scientifically, theologically, and philosophically adequate. As Oord helps readers arrive

at a clearer understanding of the definition, recipients, and forms of love, he mounts a case

for Christian agape and ultimately for a loving God. - Amazon blurb

Explaining Love to an Alien

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/explaining_love_to_an_alien/#.U7f33fldX9w

by Thomas Jay Oord

June 27, 2014

Suppose an alien from Planet X leaned over the counter at Starbucks and asked, “What is this ‘love’ I hear spoken of on your planet?”

If you’re a relatively young person, the first thoughts racing across your mind may be Haddaway’s music and lyrics, “What is love? (Baby don’t hurt me!)”

If you’re from a previous generation, Foreigner’s lyrics may come to mind, “I wanna know what love is. And I want you to show me.”

Unfortunately, of course, those lyrics don’t help much when it comes to defining love. They simply ask the question. Your alien inquirer needs something more if she’s to understand love. And let’s suppose she has plenty of coffee and time to listen to your answer.

Love is a Many SPLINTERED Thing

To begin, let’s admit that our language is unlikely to capture fully what we mean by love. Although useful, language has its limits.

But we rely upon language to communicate. And despite its limits, it seems at least somewhat helpful. So let’s talk with our alien inquirer.

One option for defining love is simply to describe what people may mean each time they use the word. Take these examples:

“I love the Seattle Mariners.”

“I love my puppy.”

“I love God.”

“I love a man in uniform.”

“I love peperoni pizza.”

Our alien inquirer will quickly see the problem with this approach. We use “love” to describe our responses to so many things. Listing all of the instances may take a lifetime!

Besides, we mean something different when we say, “I love my impoverished neighbor” and “I love that girl’s emerald-green eyes.” The “love is whatever it seems to mean, given the circumstances” approach fails to inform our alien inquirer.

A similar but more scholarly approach is to describe the history of how the word “love” has been used. Philosopher Irving Singer’s multi-volume work (3), The Nature of Love, is perhaps the most comprehensive in this approach.

Irving traces major philosophers, cultural shifts, understandings of romance and marriage, and more. Noticeably absent in Irving’s work, however, is much mention of love as a religious or theological category.

Irving’s work, although a fascinating work of descriptive analytic philosophy, will likely leave our alien inquirer unsatisfied. History can be interesting. But as we read how “love” has been used, we naturally wonder what might unite these diverse notions. Love may be a many splendored thing, but its meanings are splintered in various ways!

If love is more than arbitrary word, we owe it to our alien inquirer to do more than mention every instance in which humans have used the word “love.”

The Archetypes of Love

A more common approach to understanding love is to seek general love categories. Love takes many forms, and these forms seem to fall under several archetypes.

Philosopher Alan Soble specifies what he and most scholars consider the three primary love archetypes. Soble refers to the ancient Greek words: agape, eros, philia.

Nicholas Wolterstorff also identifies three forms of love, and they roughly correspond to the meaning of the three Greek words Soble mentions: love as benevolence, love as attraction, and love as attachment. 

Literary scholar C. S. works from these same categories, referring to “gift-love” (agape), “need-love” (eros), friendship love (philia). He adds a fourth: affection (storge).

The attempt to place love into several major categories is laudable. And our alien inquirer may start to gain clarity.

But the work to categorize love into archetypes suggests that something unites the archetypal categories. It may be that philosopher John Armstrong is right when he says, “love doesn’t have an essence we can uncover.” But just after claiming love has no essence, Armstrong says, “it has, rather, a set of themes that interact differently in different instances of love.”

So… how do we know when we encounter an “instance of love,” to use Armstrong’s phrase? Doesn’t this suggest we presuppose some uniting essence or core notion?

Toward A Normative Definition of Love

In my research, I’ve discovered four general ways of understanding love.

One way focuses on desire and intentionality. Let’s call it “the desire understanding of love.” This approach draws from Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, and the Neo-Platonic tradition.

The desire understanding of love thinks love is desire that motivates action. Thomas Aquinas puts it this way: “every agent, whatever it be, does every action from love of some kind.” This approach tends to talk about proper or improper loves. Or it talks about virtuous love or love deformed. The essence of love, from this perspective, is desire.

The second way focuses on relationality. Let’s call it “the relational understanding of love.” This approach is less common historically, but it is growing in popularity, as relational approaches to metaphysics seem to many more plausible.

The relational understanding of love says the reciprocity inherent in any relationship is itself love. [Process] Philosopher Charles Hartshorne uses the phrase “life sharing” to define love as mutuality. Hartshorne says, “love means realization in oneself of the desires and experiences of others, so that one who loves can in so far inflict suffering only by undergoing this suffering himself.” (Hartshorne uses the classic word, “suffering,” here in the way we’d use “relational” today.)

The third way to understand love focuses on feelings. This “feeling understanding of love” is common among psychologists. From the scholarly literature, however, it is difficult to ascertain what this feeling precisely entails. For this reason, the feeling understanding of love may simply describe the emotional content of the desires or relationships of the one loving.

The fourth way focuses on positive results. Or at least it says positive results are the intention of the one doing the loving. Let’s call this “the well-being understanding of love.”

In the well-being understanding, the lover is motivated to promote good. Gary Chartier defines love in the well-being sense when he says love is “a positive orientation on the other.” The essence of love, according to this understanding, is promoting the good.

My Definition of Love

For a number of reasons, I prefer the fourth understanding of love. But I think the other understandings provide necessary components to a normative definition of love. For this reason, I define love in this way:

“To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being.”

I use the phrase “to act intentionally” to take into account the desire aspect of love, which I think always accompanies those actions we rightly deem loving. I use the phrase “in sympathetic/empathetic response to others” to taking into account the relational/mutuality aspect of love, which I think is always present when we love.

The phrase “promote overall well-being” is the main object of the sentence, because in my mind the essence of love is promoting what is good. I’ve inserted “overall” into this statement on well-being, because I want to account for personal well-being, social well-being, ecological well-being, and more, [and one could mention divine well-being. - res]

Of course, I could and should say more about each aspect of my definition. I didn’t even explain why I’ve inserted the theological phrase, “(including God),” in my definition. I explain my definition further in my books, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement and The Nature of Love: A Theology.

So… back to our inquiring alien from Planet X. If asked at Starbucks what love is – and I didn’t have an hour to explain what I’ve written above – I might sing a (slightly altered) line from a Paul McCartney song: “my love does … good!”