Open Theism & Process Theology, Part 1/2

In working through Roger Olson's latest article on Process Theology I have attempted to simplify a rather difficult and confusing subject by adding highlights, bulleted sub-paragraphs and divisions, and Wikipedia's all too glossy definitions to Dr. Olson's very specific (unglossy) terminology. I think this should then better encourage the newly initiate to understand the philosophic and ontological differences in better distinction with one another.

Further, these areas all fall into the realm of ontology which is that branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being and essence, and in this case, God's being and essence. Consequently, though more could be said on each subject the definitions have been limited to the topic of ontology alone (not free will, not soteriology, not futurism, etc).

R.E. Slater

August 14, 2011

*Open Theism & Process Theology, Part 2/2 may be found here -

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/theism-panentheism-open-theism-process.html

(for additional discussions see sidebar under "Theism")

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Process Theology

(with special reference to Terence Fretheim)

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/08/13/process-theology-with-special-reference-to-terence-fretheim/

by Roger Olson

on August 13, 2011

Some time ago a visitor to this blog listed Lutheran Old Testament scholar Terence Fretheim among process theologians. I challenged him on that and he asked me to read Fretheim’s book Creation Untamed: The Bible, God, and Natural Disasters (Baker, 2010); he claimed it would convince me that Fretheim is a process theologian and not just a garden variety open theist. (Fretheim was an open theist before that label existed; his work has inspired many open theists and they have used it to support their belief that the Bible portrays God as not knowing the future exhaustively and infallibly because the future is not yet fully settled.)

I have known Terry Fretheim casually for years. He taught at Luther Theological Seminary when I taught at Bethel College (now Bethel University) and we rubbed elbows occasionally at various events. I thought I knew his theology fairly well, so I suggested that IF the person claiming he is a process theologian would send me the book in question I would read it and respond here. It has taken some time, but I have now read the book and here is my response.

First, we need to agree on what “process theology” means. As with so many theological labels, it has sometimes been stretched far beyond its original meaning. I’m confident my interlocutor here understood its true, historical meaning and was not confusing open theism with process theology. However, I can’t count on everyone knowing the difference.

As many of you know, one of my worst pet peeves (i.e., that I most abhor) is the all-too-common tendency for meaningful theological terms to get stretched out of shape to the point they are virtually meaningless. One example is “panentheism.” For about a century it had a relatively clear and distinct meaning rooted in its use by the philosopher who coined it: Karl Friedrich Christian Krause (1781-1832). Panentheism was not just any alternative to classical theism with its doctrines of divine simplicity, strong immutability, impassibility, etc. No, panentheism was, until recently (!) only views that (i) denied creatio ex nihilo and (ii) regarded God and the world as interdependent realities–NOT by God’s volition but necessarily. The classical statement of panentheism was Hegel’s “Without the world, God is not God.” Another was Whitehead’s “It is as true to say God creates the world as that the world creates God."*


(*this is an instance of Christian dualism like other simplistic dualistic forms: good and evil (God as good, world as evil), yin and yang, light and dark, etc. - res)

**********

 ~ Definitions are limited to the topic of Ontology alone ~
(not free will, not soteriology, not futurism)

Panentheism

Proponents: Karl Friedrich Krause, Hegel

- denies ex nihilo creatio (creation from nothing)

- God and the world are interdependent realities
- God is not all powerful

- God did not create the world, it was created when God came into being

- Without the world there is no God

- God created the world as at the same time the world created God
- God contains the universe but is not identical with it
- the world is a part of God and God is greater than his creation

- a derivative of pantheism:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

- found in mystical Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Process Theology

* Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator God. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe. Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

In Pantheism, God is identical with the universe, but in Panentheism God lies within and also beyond or outside of the universe (see "Wiki References" further below in this article for more).

(Classic) Theism

- God's existence ever was and ever will be

- His form has no "source" other than himself
  (speaks to God's aseity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseity)

- God is incapable of being other than He is (immutable*)

- God is incapable of suffering harm (impassable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impassable)

- God is a personal being and not an inanimate object

- God created the world (affirming ex nihilo creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo)
- God is all powerful (omnipotence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence)

- God's relationship with the world is voluntary
- Conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance
   and organization of the world and the universe

*an immutable object is an object whose state cannot be modified after it is created.
 This is in contrast to a mutable object, which can be modified after it is created

**********

In recent years “panentheism” has come to be used of almost ANY alternative to strong classical theism that emphasizes God’s aseity (noun. Metaphysics. Existence originating from and having no source other than itself) and impassibility (verb. incapable of suffering harm). (See for example the volume In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World (Eerdmans, 2004).

Back to process theology

Unfortunately, some opponents of open theism have worked very hard to confuse open theism with process theology and too many people with very little knowledge of either one have bought into that false identification. In order to see and understand the clear, stark differences read Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists (Eerdmans, 2000). I know some silly people who have assumed that just because process theologians and open theists had a dialogue they must be, at least, close in their views of God. Nothing could be further from the truth! The “dialogue” turns into a debate and, in the end, these two views have almost nothing in common–below the surface. For example, ALL the “free will theists” (open theists) affirm creatio ex nihilo and God’s omnipotence while ALL the process theologians deny them.

**********

 ~ Definitions are limited to the topic of Ontology alone ~
(not free will, not soteriology, not futurism)

Process Theology
(there are many forms of panentheism and process theology is but one type)

Proponents: Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Paul Sponheim, Daniel Day Williams, Norman Pittenger, David Griffin, Robert Mellert, Joe Bracken, John B. Cobb, David Ray Griffin, Jurgen Moltmann, Paul Fiddes, I. A. Dorner

- denies ex nihilo creatio (creation from nothing)
- God contains the universe but is not identical with it
- the world is a part of God and God is greater than his creation
- denies God's omnipotence
- God and the world are necessarily ontologically interdependent (panentheism)
- God's relation to the world is involuntary
- thus, this interdependence has nothing to do with God's voluntarily self-limitations
- therefore, God is essentially limited and thus not omnipotent
- thus, God cannot act unilaterally coercively to cause events in a supernatural way
- affirms "free will" both God's, man's and creation, as separate "forces" from each other
- God's will is cast in terms of persuasion and influence


Open Theism
(ontologically similar to Classic Theism)

Proponents: Terence Fretheim

- affirms ex nihilo creation
- affirms God's omnipotence
- affirms God's voluntary interdependence  to the created world
- affirms God's self-limitation to the created world
- grants "free will" to man and creation from within God and not separate from God
- differs from classic theism in terms of God's omniscience (which is not the purview of this discussion herein; please refer to other articles on this web blog that discuss "Open Theism")

(see "Wiki References" further below for more definitions on
Process Theology and Open Theism)

**********

So how shall we get a handle on what process theology is? That’s crucial to settling the question whether Fretheim is a process theologian, isn’t it? (I’m tempted to say–just compare Fretheim’s [open] theology with his former colleague Paul Sponheim’s theology! Sponheim is a well known process theologian. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between their ideas of God is not reading them carefully.)

So what do I know about process theology? During my seminary education I took an external course (3 credit semester seminar) on it from a process theologian. (He was not well known and now I’ve forgotten his name; he taught theology at Augustana College and for the Luther Seminary extension there called Shalom.) We read a book of essays by leading process theologians (Process Philosophy and Christian Thought edited by Delwin Brown and others) and a couple books by John Cobb including God AND the World and Christ in a Pluralistic Age. For my research paper for that course I read books by various process theologians including Daniel Day Williams, Norman Pittenger, David Griffin, Robert Mellert, Joe Bracken, et al. Later I found THE brief, definitive volume explaining the basics of process theology in a way anyone can understand (and recommended it to students and anyone interested in process theology hundreds of times): Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition edited by John Cobb and David Griffin (1976). I consider it authoritative even if somewhat simple. Of course, all these theologians interact with Whitehead and Hartshorne–some of whose writings I have read (e.g., The Divine Relativity and Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes).

So what has my years-long study of process theology yielded in terms of its necessary features and contours? In spite of recent misuses of the term (and concept), historically process theology has ALWAYS meant belief that God and the world are necessarily ontologically interdependent (panentheism) and that this interdependence is NOT due to any voluntary self-limitation on God’s part. God is essentially limited [and] not omnipotent and CANNOT act unilaterally coercively to cause events in a supernatural way. (I could add that most process theologians are not classical trinitarians and do not believe in the classical hypostatic union or many other elements of traditional Christian orthodoxy.)

Now, can someone dig up a person who CALLS HIMSELF or HERSELF a “process theologian” or who CLAIMS to hold to “process theology” and disagrees with those elements I have called essential to it? Of course. There are always exceptions–especially when a movement has no headquarters or magisterium which process theology certainly does not. Some people have picked up certain elements of it and combined those with other things and come up with something they consider a hybrid. But I would not consider that true process theology. In fact, I would deny that any theology can be counted as process theology if it believes God’s relationship with the world, however intimate, is voluntary. [Which falls] into that category [of] theologians who believe God and the world are in some way interdependent BECAUSE GOD HAS CHOSEN IT TO BE THAT WAY (but didn’t have to) - see Jurgen Moltmann, Paul Fiddes, I. A. Dorner (19th century mediating theologian), Wolfhart Pannenberg (about whose theology I wrote my dissertation and with whom I studied in Munich) and many, many others.

That’s the category Terence Fretheim CLEARLY falls into and a careful reading of Creation Untamed undeniably reveals it. On page 26 and elsewhere he refers to God’s self-limitation as the reason for God’s interdependence with creation. Sprinkled throughout the book are statements like “God makes God’s self vulnerable” (133) and “God is a power-sharing God–for the sake of genuine relationship.” (32)

I do not see how anyone with correct knowledge of process theology can read Fretheim’s book and come away thinking it is process theology or he is a process theologian. Nowhere does Fretheim imply or suggest (to say nothing of claim) that God is less than omnipotent or that God’s relationship with the world is [directly or inferentially] reciprocal in any necessary ontological way. Every limitation of God’s power is based on God’s free choice for the sake of genuine relatedness.

(By the way, I agree entirely with Fretheim’s theology (open theism) of God and the world in which he affirms the power of intercessory prayer (for example). For him prayer does NOT merely change the person praying; it opens up real possibilities for God to act to change circumstances in the world. Fretheim does not use the terms “supernatural” or “miracle,” but everything he says is consistent with them).

I thank whoever sent me the book; it was an inspiring read. But it is not process theology. It might be open theism, but, as I have argued over and over to anyone who will listen, they are not the same.

**********

Comments

Russ says:

August 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm

Checking Wikipedia’s definitions of open theism, process theology and panentheism found them a bit “sloppy”. Thanks for the better, more specific, insights.

Too, was your reference to Jurgen Moltmann, Paul Fiddes, I. A. Dorner and Wolfhart Pannenberg a reference to THEISTS who posit God’s volutary relation with the world but who are not necessarily OPEN Theists? Thanks

Reply

• rogereolson says:

  August 14, 2011 at 6:10 pm

  I asked Moltmann if he is an open theist (first we discussed what that meant) and he affirmed he is. He said “But of course! That is part of the kenosis of God!” (viz., that God does not know the future exhaustively).
• I don’t know [whether] Fiddes is an open theist.
• Surprisingly, Dorner might have been. Claude Welch, perhaps the leading Dorner scholar in America, described him that way in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century (volume 1).
• Pannenberg is most definitely NOT an open theist [(nor is he a process theologian)], but his aphorism “God does not yet exist” makes his theism anything but classical! (I wrote my dissertation on that Pannenbergian sentence!)
• None of these are process theologians. John Cobb once thought Pannenberg was a process thinker, but Pannenberg cleared that up decisively and their friendship suffered some because of Pannenberg’s distancing himself from process thought.

Russ says:

August 14, 2011 at 2:04 pm

I took that panentheism is part of process theology, but that process theology goes “beyond” panentheism in its further explanation of God.

Reply

• rogereolson says:

  August 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm

  I would put process theology as one type of panentheism. Hegel was a panentheist but not a process thinker. Same with John Macquarrie.

Joseph says:

August 14, 2011 at 9:34 pm

It might be worthwhile to mention that Terence Fretheim does not claim the label “open theist.” I have heard him say in a public forum in response to questions posed to him concerning open theism, “I am not an open theist.” I well understand that his theology falls into the stream of thought that is labeled “open theism” (and I am confident he is also aware of this). Nevertheless, he does not see himself engaging in systematic theology, and as such he does not adopt systematic labels for himself. He does consider himself “Lutheran,” but this is an ecclesial label indicative of the tradition within which he works, not a theological one. I think applying the label “open theist” to Fretheim assumes he operates under certain assumptions about the nature of the unity of Scripture that are actually foreign from his methodological assumptions. In this respect, it is inaccurate to speak of Fretheim as an open theist.

Reply

• rogereolson says:

  August 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm

  That raises a host of questions about how labels should be used. What if someone says “I believe in TULIP but I’m not a Calvinist?” Okay, of course the person has a right to reject any label. But people discussing his theology also have a right to call him a Calvinist because that’s what makes someone a Calvinist. I do try to be fair about my use of labels and from now on I’ll do my best to mention that Terry does not accept the label “open theist.” (The same is true, by the way, of Dallas Willard who, in my judgment, holds a view identical to open theism but does not want to be labeled that.) Some time ago I talked to two leading Arminian theologians–Thomas Oden and I. Howard Marshall. Both rejected the label “Arminian.” But both are Methodists and their soteriologies are most definitely consistent with, if not identical to, Arminius’! What to make of this rejection of labels by some people? My late friend Stan Grenz was an Arminian, but when I told him so he said “I know, but don’t tell anybody.” Hmmmmm. Okay. I didn’t while he was still with us. But I just don’t understand this problem with labels.

**********

Wiki References

Panentheism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God personally exists, interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism is differentiated from pantheism, which holds that God is not a distinct being but is synonymous with the universe.

Simply put, in pantheism, God is the whole; however, in panentheism, the whole is in God. This means that the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and God are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism [ ...as is American Indian legends of the Great Spirit].




Process Theology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

1 - God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.

2 - Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.

3 - The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.

4 - God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism, not pantheism or pandeism). Some also call this "theocosmocentrism" to emphasize that God has always been related to some world or another.

5 - Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.

6 - Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Other process theologians believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death.




Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Open theism is a recent theological movement that has developed within evangelical and post-evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas that are related to the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. Several of these ideas within classical theism (a designation which is not to be taken as inclusive of all of orthodox theism) state that God is immutable, impassible, and timeless. For several versions of classical theism, God fully determines the future; thus, humanity does not have libertarian free will, or, if free, that its freedom must necessarily be compatible with God's determining actions. Open theists argue that these attributes do not belong to the God of the Bible and are at odds with personhood.

Openness is based on God as the Living God. The five most fundamental attributes of God are that God is Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving. These faithfully represent God the way that Scripture presents Him, and starkly contrast with the Greek and Roman philosophical construction of God.^[2]

Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, God is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to God's plan or presuppositions.

Gregory A. Boyd claims that "open theism" is an inappropriate term since the position posits more about the nature of time and reality than it does about God itself. This is to say that open theists do not believe that God does not know the future, but rather that the future does not exist to be known by anyone [God or otherwise]. For the open theist the future simply has not happened yet, not for anyone, and thus is unknowable in the common sense. Thus, to say that God does not know the future is akin to saying that God does not know about square circles. In this understanding, it could be technically wiser to refer to the view as "open futurism".

**********

Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[1] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.^[2][3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.^[4]

The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–88).^[5]

Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity.^[6] Rejection of the narrower sense of theism can take forms such as deism, pantheism, and polytheism.

The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown is agnosticism, and can be compatible with theism and with atheism.^[7][8][9] The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, can also be attributed to some theists and some atheists. Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) knowledge; they are not mutually exclusive as they deal with different domains.

 Types

Monotheism

Monotheism (from Greek μόνος) is the belief in theology that only one deity exists.^[10] Some modern day monotheistic religions include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Polytheism

While a specific definition of theism may exclude polytheism, it is included by the most general definition. Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one deity.^[11] In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities.

Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties:

• Hard polytheism views the gods as being distinct and separate beings; an example of this would be the Egyptian and Greek Religions; along with certain schools of Hinduism.
• Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole. Some forms of Hinduism such as Smartism/Advaita Vedanta serve as examples of soft polytheism.

Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded:

• Henotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but worship of only one of them.
• Kathenotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity is worshipped at a time or ever, and another may be worthy of worship at another time or place. If they are worshipped one at a time, then each is supreme in turn.
• Monolatrism: The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshipped. Most of the modern monotheistic religions may have begun as monolatric ones.

 

Pantheism and panentheism

While a specific definition of theism may exclude pantheism, it is included by the most general definition.

• Pantheism: The belief that the physical universe is equivalent to a god or gods, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation.^[12] Examples include many forms of Saivism.
• Panentheism: Like Pantheism, the belief that the physical universe is joined to a god or gods. However, it also believes that a god or gods are greater than the material universe. Examples include most forms of Vaishnavism.

Some people find the distinction between these two beliefs as ambiguous and unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division.^[13]

 

Deism

While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general definition given above.

• Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe.^[14]

Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.^[15]

• Pandeism: The belief that a god preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.
• Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity
• Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

 

Autotheism (Apotheosis)

While a specific definition of theism may exclude autotheism, it is included by the most general definition. Autotheism is the viewpoint that, whether divinity is also external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one has a duty to become perfect (or divine). This can either be in a selfish, wilful, egotistical way or a selfless way following the implications of statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders (such as Jesus,^[16][17] Buddha, Mahavira and Socrates^{[citation needed]}).

Autotheism can also refer to the belief that one's self is a deity (often the only one), within the context of subjectivism. This is a fairly extreme version of subjectivism, however.

 

Value-judgment theisms

• Eutheism is the viewpoint/belief that a deity(ies) is wholly benevolent; dystheism allows for there being evil in the divine realm.
• Maltheism is the belief that a deity exists, but that god is wholly malicious and abusive.

References

1. ^ "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism. Retrieved 2011-03-18.
2. ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition and The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1997).
3. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica.
4. ^ John Orr (English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, 1934) explains that before the seventeenth century theism and deism were interchangeable terms but during the course of the seventeenth century they gained separate and mutually exclusive meanings (see deism)
5. ^ Halsey, William; Robert H. Blackburn, Sir Frank Francis (1969). Louis Shores. ed. Collier's Encyclopedia. 22 (20 ed.). Crowell-Collier Educational Corporation. pp. 266–7.
6. ^
   • Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism. Retrieved 2011-01-26. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)...".
   • Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 0028657802. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion.". (page 175 in 1967 edition)
7. ^ Carroll, Robert (2009-02-22). "agnosticism". The Skeptic's Dictionary. skepdic.com. http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html. Retrieved 2011-02-02.
8. ^ Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) [1967]. "Agnosticism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 92. ISBN 0028657802. "In the most general use of the term, agnosticism is the view that we do not know whether there is a God or not.". (page 56 in 1967 edition)
9. ^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415073103. http://books.google.ca/books?id=VQ-GhVWTH84C&pg=PA122&dq=agnosticism+routledge&hl=en&ei=huJITffyII6CsQOZ2eCkCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational.".
10. ^ “Monotheism”, in Britannica, 15th ed. (1986), 8:266.
11. ^ AskOxford: polytheism
12. ^ "Philosophical Dictionary: Pacifism-Particular". http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p.htm#pant.
13. ^ "What is Panentheism?". About.Com: Agnosticism/Atheism. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_panen.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-18.
14. ^ AskOxford: deism
15. ^ Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (G. & C. Merriam, 1924) defines deism as "belief in the existence of a personal god, with disbelief in Christian teaching, or with a purely rationalistic interpretation of Scripture".
16. ^ Matthew 5:38 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"
17. ^ Luke 17:21 "The Kingdom of God is within you"

Is the emerging/emergent church movement (ECM) a real movement?

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/08/11/is-the-emergingemergent-church-movement-ecm-a-real-movement/

By Roger Olson

August 11, 2011

I’m enjoying the discussion about the Emerging Church Movement (ECM) here. It has waxed and waned here several times since my blog began. Every time the discussion takes off it seems to suffer from a distinct lack of clarity about what exactly counts as “emerging.” Some have even questioned whether there is an ECM. Of course, no one questions the existence of the Emergent Village, but nobody thinks that is the whole of the phenomenon. So, it is one thing to describe EV and its affiliates and something else (perhaps not entirely) to describe an ECM–if such a thing actually exists.

One commenter here asked me to define or describe the concept “movement,” which I attempted to do in my brief response to him. I regard any affinity group that networks with each other for mutual support and change a movement. If there’s no networking, then it’s not a movement but a phenomenon. If there’s a headquarters and boundaries, then it’s not a movement but an organization. I grew up in a denomination that preferred to call itself a movement, but it clearly was not; it was an organization because it had a headquarters and clear boundaries. People were either in or out. I may be wrong, but I’m not sure the “Cowboy Church” phenomenon is really a movement because I’m not aware of much networking going on except in relatively enclosed geographical areas. (I’m open to correction, but I haven’t heard of cowboy churches in South Dakota networking with cowboy churches in Texas.)

A movement has a center without boundaries. The center is a set of common interests and ideals. People who make up the movement are more or less committed to those ideals, but all share the interests. When a movement develops boundaries it is no longer a movement but an organization. (Of course most movements spin off organizations that are then part of the movement but rarely become all of it.)

Movements are notoriously difficult to pin down and describe–except by their common interests, ideals and commitments (although it must be remembered that within any movement, insofar as it is truly a movement and not an organization, levels of commitment to the ideals varies.) That’s what makes them so interesting and what gives rise to so much discussion and debate about them. But that debate can become confusing when people forget the nature of movements.

Let’s look at some examples of religious movements. The charismatic movement began in the late 1950s and early 1960s when members of Catholic and so-called mainline Protestant churches began speaking in tongues. It really took off in the late 1960s with conferences and conventions like the Lutheran Conference on the Holy Spirit held annually in Minneapolis. By all accounts thousands of Catholic and mainline Protestant churches jumped on the charismatic bandwagon as did some classical Pentecostal churches that shook off their Pentecostal ethos to become more ecumenical and inclusive (of, for example, people who smoked and drank wine and danced!). (I was part of a Pentecostal church that shifted to charismatic.) Throughout the 1960s and 1970s people debated the nature of the charismatic movement and its boundaries. Much of that discussion was misguided and misleading because there never was a headquarters or magisterium or universal spokesperson or group for the whole movement. But a cottage industry arose around attempts to define it and describe it and gain influence over it. Some organizations tried hard to harness the movement’s energy and control it for their own purposes. During the 1970s and 1980s Oral Roberts tried desperately to do that with little success. Eventually the movement died out as charismatics stopped networking with each other and settled into competing organizations. The charismatic ethos (it’s center) gradually blended into the religious mainstream as demonstrated in, for example, “praise and worship” chorus singing during Sunday morning worship services (something virtually unheard of before the charismatic movement).

What was the (relatively) unifying center of the charismatic movement? It was, of course, interest in and practice of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit and especially speaking in tongues (but also prophecy and healing). The ideal for change was to renew the mainline churches with these gifts and their modern recovery. Charismatics all over the world networked with each other through conferences, publications and projects. Looking back on it, nobody would claim the movement had boundaries. What would they have been? It was about as diverse as a religious movement can be! And yet nobody doubted it existed–as a movement. What made it more than a phenomenon was the networking; what made it not an organization was the lack of a unifying structure.

I could mention other religious movements like that–the so-called new age movement, the Jesus people Movement, the fundamentalist movement and, of course, the (neo-)evangelical movement.

I think a lot more light and less heat could be generated in the discussions and debates about the ECM if people recognized and acknowledged its nature as a movement. Like all movements it didn’t must pop up out of nowhere; it has antecedents and older roots. The charismatic movement was influenced by the Pentecostal movement. (Assemblies of God minister David du Plessis is usually credited with being the catalyst of the charismatic movement.) The new age movement was influenced by the various theosophical groups that preceded it. The Jesus people movement was influenced by both fundamentalism and Pentecostalism. (Foursquare minister Chuck Smith is usually credited with being the catalyst of the Jesus people movement.) The ECM seems to be influenced by Mike Yaconelli and Youth Specialties.

• Every movement takes up the old in a new way and adds to it as well as subtracts from it.
• Every movement includes some diversity and is dynamic–flexible and changing.
• Every movement has its founders and its “Johnny-come-latelies” and its exploiters.
• Every movement has its would-be popes, its prophets and its critics (both internal and external).
• Every movement has its adherents who refuse to be identified with it. (For example, as the charismatic movement gradually died out and television evangelists began using the label for themselves and their ministries many of the original charismatic leaders declined the label and distanced themselves from the movement without discarding its original ethos.)

So how can we ever get a handle on the ECM–assuming it is really a movement which I think is obvious (in the sense I have outlined above)? Two alternative approaches come to mind. First, we might simply survey all the people who call themselves “emerging” or “emergent” and find out (e.g., along the lines of an ethnographical study) from them what they have in common. That way we might discover the central, magnetic core of common interests, ideals and (relative) commitments that define the movement. Second, we might survey scholars who study the movement (as opposed to simply believing everyone who self-identifies as emerging or emergent)–asking them what defines or characterizes it. In either case what we are after are the movement’s “family resemblances” which I would call its core interests, ideals (values) and commitments.

The two approaches are very different and each has its dangers. One danger of the first approach is that we might only ask those leaders we favor or are directed to by others who favor them. Another danger is that we might include in the survey mere hangers-on—people who are exploiting the popularity of the term “emerging” (or “emergent”) but have no real affinity with the original movement. A danger of the second approach is that we might locate and interview scholars who have a bias about the movement or whose study of it is focused on only one segment of the movement.

Obviously, the best approach is to combine the approaches—survey many people who self-identify as emerging or emergent and ask scholars and experts who have studied the movement with some scholarly distance. In practicing these approaches we have to strive to include as much of the diversity of the movement as possible and find scholars who are as objective as possible. None of this is guaranteed to deliver the definitive definition or description, but it’s probably as close as we can come to it [for now, at that moment in time]. (And, of course, we have to remember that a movement is dynamic so “as close as we can come to it” always means “for now.”)

I cannot claim to be a scholar of the movement or even an expert, but I have become acquainted over the years with a variety of people in some leadership position in self-identified emerging churches (and some that don’t self-identify as emerging but are widely considered to be that anyway). I have also read fairly widely in the literature associated with the movement. Some of the people I have met face-to-face and talked with about emerging churches are Doug Pagitt, Dan Kimball, Tony Jones, Kyle Lake, and Brian McLaren (who has spoken in my classes). I have spoken at emerging churches and retreats of emerging church planters. I attended and spoke at the National Pastors Convention in San Diego which was a gathering place for people interested in and involved with the ECM. Some of my students have gone on to be leaders in emerging [Texan] churches including Journey (Dallas), Mosaic (Austin), Eucatastrophe (Fort Worth) and UBC (Waco).

Earlier I mentioned a book that I consider especially helpful in understanding the ECM: Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger. Another very helpful book is Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives edited by the late Robert Webber and authored by Mark Driscoll, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt and Karen Ward. “Listening” includes chapters by the five self-identified emerging church pastors and responses to each chapter by the others. An excellent article that attempts to describe the ECM is Five Streams of the Emerging Church by Scot McKnight, by all accounts one of the most sympathetic and astute scholarly observers of the movement. It was published in Christianity Today’s February, 2007 issue and may be read at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html?start=6 of simply by googling the title.

The five authors of “Listening” seem to represent a broad spectrum of approaches to doctrine, theology, scripture, authority in general, worship and interactions with culture. At opposite ends (at least on some major issues of concern to both) are Mark Driscoll and Doug Pagitt. Clearly Driscoll considers Pagitt too liberal and Pagitt is uncomfortable with what he seems to regard as a fundamentalist streak in Driscoll. (I have heard that Driscoll has since disassociated himself from the ECM, but that only raises the question whether someone can do that definitively or whether they are still emergent even if they reject the label and much of the rest of the movement. Driscoll, for example, seems to be in quite a bit of sympathy with Kimball who is, by all accounts, an influential ECM pastor and author.) Between them are Kimball, who calls himself a “conservative evangelical” while distancing himself from much that goes under that label, and John Burke, who clearly is evangelical in his sympathies even if he doesn’t like much that people associate with the evangelical movement in America. Karen Ward is difficult to describe; she regards herself as part of the so-called mainline of Protestant life and yet also pushes the envelope on matters of church life and leadership as well as worship and even theology.

One thing is obvious from the “Listening” dialogue. These five authors, chosen because editor Webber and publisher Zondervan consider them representative of the diversity of the ECM, have some things in common in terms of core interests, concerns, ideals, values and commitments but also diverge from each other quite a bit on at least the details.

+ For example, Kimball believes the Nicene Creed must serve as a kind of “floor” on which all Christians, emerging or otherwise, conduct their theological dance (to use a Pagitt metaphor for theology).

+ Pagitt, on the other hand, expresses disagreement and prefers to hold all human statements of belief, creeds or confessions or doctrines, open to reconsideration and revision.

+ For Kimball (and probably also for Burke to say nothing of Driscoll!) the Bible holds a place of primacy in determining right doctrine and practice.  [sic, it is authoritative]

+ For Pagitt (and Ward?) the Bible is story and guide but not absolutely authoritative in any traditional sense.

One cannot help but come away from reading “Listening” with the impression that among these five ECM leaders (who network with each other) there are really three distinct “flavors,” if you will. One is Driscoll’s and it is hardly different from traditional conservative evangelicalism and even smacks of fundamentalism. It’s no surprise that, after this book was published, Driscoll disavowed the ECM. But that still leaves Kimball and Burke who seem fairly close to each other in terms of wanting to hold to the primacy of inspired scripture and historical Christian orthodoxy even if they seek to hold those in new ways (e.g., without beating people over the head with them). For Kimball and Burke, apparently, what makes their ministries “emerging” is their emphasis on contextualization and sensitivity to non-Christians and their worldviews and beliefs.

Pagitt and Ward seem to breathe a different air than Kimball and Burke (to say nothing of Driscoll). For them, so it seems, “authority” is a dirty word that conjures up images of inquisitions or at least modern emphasis on certainty and the power that comes with its claims. Pagitt and Ward seem to be open to endless revision of doctrine; for them theology is a journey without end or any definite place to stand. Revealing is Pagitt’s objection to Kimball’s metaphor of the Nicene Creed as an anchor to keep the boat (the ECM?) from drifting too far. Pagitt is uncomfortable with any anchor and Kimball responds by wondering why love is so non-negotiable for Pagitt (if he rejects any definite anchors).

The five authors are cordial with each other, but their differences are sharp. Kimball and Burke definitely want to keep at least one foot firmly planted in Christian orthodoxy and even evangelical faith broadly defined (not as it is defined by the media or the Religious Right). Pagitt seems to be in reaction against orthodoxy and evangelicalism—without throwing them out altogether. Pagitt is the prophet calling for greater humility and fighting triumphalism in the evangelical ranks while wanting to be part of that conversation. Kimball and Burke sympathize with those concerns of Pagitt’s but, at the same time, worry that he is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So what do these five and other emerging church leaders I have known and read have in common?

Drawing on my own acquaintance with emerging church leaders and on the books and articles I have read I have come up with a portrait, as it were, of the ECM today. The portrait is made up of common (not unanimous) interests, concerns, methods, ideals, values and commitments of ECM people especially in North America.

First, they are dissatisfied with traditional church life because it seems inauthentic and stuck in modern modes of thinking and acting. They are seeking authenticity in church life by re-examining traditional approaches to either doctrine, worship or church structure or all of those. They are willing to discard what is not useful in contextualizing the gospel of the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus among today’s postmodern (especially young) people. At least some of them would balk, however, at discarding the authority of scripture and basic creedal orthodoxy.

Second, they believe the conventional approach to church membership of believe, behave, belong needs to be replaced with belong, believe, behave. In other words, right belief and behavior spring from right community [sic, orthopraxy over orthodoxy]. (One of my concerns, however, is how this plays out in terms of leadership. Most of the emerging churches I know that talk this way have higher expectations for belief and behavior for the leadership team which is often the only membership.)

Third, they believe Christian churches should not primarily be focused on their own survival but should focus primarily on mission to and for the world and that mission should be driven by a vision of God’s kingdom as bringing as much of the world as possible into conformity with the message of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. They are all opposed to anything that smacks of Christendom including any coercive methods of bringing in the kingdom.

Fourth, they are disillusioned with modernity and its affects in Western culture and society. And they believe “religion” and “modernity” are so intertwined that we need to develop a form of Christianity free of both. They like Bonhoeffer’s suggestion of a “religionless Christianity.” By “modernity” they mean the inflation of reason that seems to exclude faith (Peter Rollins) and the emphasis on control that has marked so much of Western culture since the Enlightenment. (They do not mean the advances made by science.) By “religion” they mean traditionalism that goes through motions without knowing why (except it’s what has always been done).

Fifth, they are mostly driven by youth culture. With some notable exceptions, people over forty do not seem very involved—except as gurus of the movement (e.g., Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, et al.). (However, many of the older leaders of the ECM are pushing forty and it will be interesting to see what comes next—when kids in middle school today get into their twenties and begin to develop their own youth-oriented movement. As Alexander Pope quipped “We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow. Our wiser sons, no doubt, will think us so!”)

Perhaps others will want to add more common features, family resemblances, of the ECM, but these five seem to me to sum up the movement’s core pretty well—at least for now.

So, now, let’s return to Brandon Morgan’s point in his two guest posts here. It seems to me he is arguing that, to a very large extent, the ECM has rightly focused its critique of “religion” on conservative evangelicalism. (And I would add that much of that critique is really aimed at what I call neo-fundamentalism and the Religious Right [sic, also known as "neo-evangelicalism"]. Almost without exception when I meet ECM people who call themselves post-evangelical they mean post-fundamentalist or post-neo-fundamentalist. Most of them are unfamiliar with, for example, the Anabaptist and Arminian wings of evangelicalism.)

[But] if I understand Brandon correctly, he is asking why ECM leaders who raise their voices against conservative evangelicalism do not critique so-called mainstream Protestantism as well. I agree. Here I won’t speak for Brandon, but I think so-called mainstream Protestantism is dying for lack of vitality and that vitality has something to do with its adoption of liberal theology as its default theological method and foundation. I’m not referring to everyone and everything associated with it; no doubt there’s still much good and alive in some segments of mainline Protestantism. However, overall and in general, mainline Protestantism is still working within a modernist paradigm that reduces Christianity to cosmic awe and ethics. These aren’t bad in and of themselves, but authentic Christianity also includes personal transformation, a relationship with Jesus Christ (however mediated) and sound doctrine (not necessarily held or promoted dogmatically). The shadows of Schleiermacher and Ritschl still haunt the halls of mainline Protestant power.

Relevancy22 Progress Report (August 2011)

Progress Update - August 2011

The line of thought found within various articles on this site must necessarily correlate readily with other articles and topics found within this blog. As such, I will offer several introductory points of observation to help guide readers or by editing theological references at various points within the discussion of a listed article. I do not intend to do this in every article that is presented on this website, but will do so every now-and-again as a reminder to the reader to utilize this blog's content in-total and not simply in piecemeal fashion by blithely picking-and-choosing here-and-there subjects.

As such, this website is being built with a thoroughness in mind that will help in the cross-examination of various theological subjects in rigorous and systematic fashion. Consequently, please use it as a growing theological compendium to spur further study and exploration on subjects beyond this site's content. Hopefully each article will be inter-related as much as possible to the last and succeeding articles as can sometimes be seen demonstrated between unrelated titles.

Overall, relevancy22 is meant to be a capable guide but not an exhaustive guide. To this end I have listed other blog authors that require reading and examination, many biblical tools and resources, some church ministry sites as well as mission sites that may be directive or helpful. These of course cannot be exhaustive but are meant as compelling guides by faithful Christians dedicated to the witness, demonstration and service of our ancient faith that we call Christianity. Whose liturgies and doctrines can be overwhelmingly complex to the uninitiated novice seeking to grow in Christ and his Word. Some of the limitations on this site will be in ministry and individual practices, how-to's, methodologies and other practicums. However, this is because this site is primarily dedicated to the theological understanding and expression of Scriptures and then secondarily to areas of devotion, inspiration and practice.

This then is the purposes of this blog. It was started initially for family and friends, then to young people and disciples whom I have mentored over the years, and now wish to extend to a greater global audience than I have presently been able to do. There are gaping holes in this blog's presentation that with the passage of time may be filled. Ultimately, it may become a website or a web journal instead of a web blog but my skills for such a technological feat do not serve to that end nor does my volunteer time allow for such a project.

Further, my passion is for biblical theology, not systematic, not topical studies. But for now it is amiss as I work to establish a biblical understanding and foundation that presents a Christianity that I and many others currently understand it presently must be. Too, this site needs additional contributors and correspondents beyond myself but for now I rely on the blogger community that I have come to know and trust. And lastly, it has served to allow me to express both the positives as well as the negatives of contemporary Christianity and rightly so.

For the Christian faith is an expression of our personal relationship between Jesus and ourselves, the God of the bible and mankind, in rich fellowship with our Savior and Lord through His Word, and in the fellowship of born-again believers as a living communion. But as too often the case, Christianity has sadly become merely an animated religion filled with rules and church dogmas, dead traditions and unloving judgments, hiding the fullness of salvation, of life and love, that Jesus has called us into through His person and His atoning work on the cross. This cannot be and it is to that life that this web journal is dedicated to re-discovering and re-building through examination of the words and statements made by Christian leaders, spokesmen, organizations and advocates held against the lens of God's Word.

Finally, in all things may we pursue God with the loving fervor and witness that he has instilled within us, as a community of believers, in witness and testimony with the time that we have left. Be at peace and may God go with you.

- skinhead

The Search for the Historical Adam 5

The Search for the Historical Adam 5

http://musingsonscience.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the-search-for-the-historical-adam-5/

by rjs5

posted on August 9, 2011

We have been working through the recent book by C. John Collins entitled Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. This book looks at the question of Adam and Eve from a relatively conservative perspective but with some nuance and analysis. The questions he poses and the answers he gives provide a good touchstone for interacting with the key issues. Later this fall we will look at the question of Adam from an equally faithful, but less conservative perspective, in the context of a new book coming out by Peter Enns entitled The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins.

Chapter 3 of Dr. Collins’s book looks at the biblical and extra-biblical texts concerning Adam. In the last post we looked specifically at Dr. Collins’s discussion of Gen 1-5. In the post today we will look at the rest of the Old Testament and at references to the creation narrative in other second temple Jewish literature. In the next post we will move on to consider the references to the creation narrative in the New Testament.

In this section of his book Dr. Collins makes the point that there is a coherence to the Hebrew scriptures and to the interaction with these scriptures in the second temple literature. On this point I agree with Dr. Collins – when we try to divide and dissect the Old Testament we will fail. The Old Testament is better thought of as a library than a single book, but it is a coherent cultural library with a purpose … not an accidental collection of disparate texts tacked together and thus preserved. The general academic endeavor that divides, dissects, and analyzes the text can miss, it seems to me, the main point. The conclusions may be correct in many cases – but are only of value as they are reconstructed to help inform us of the way the entire text works together. In fact, this view of the text as a coherent whole plays a significant role in my view of scripture as authoritative and from God.

This leads to an important question though. The question really has to do with the form of our reasoning from the texts to an understanding of our faith. We need to consider and evaluate the form that the argument for or against a historical Adam takes. There are many references to the Genesis creation narrative in the OT and in the extra-biblical second temple Jewish literature. There are at least two ways these references can be interpreted in the context of the consistent narrative of scripture

Do these references attest to the historicity of the account in Gen 1-5?

Or

Do these references attest to the significance of the creation story in Jewish culture and thought?

These two approaches may seem to reflect a minor distinction – but I think it is actually the root of much of the problem we have in our church today, both with the Genesis account of creation and with our understanding of scripture as inspired by God. Dr. Collins seems to imply in his writing that these references and more significantly, the opinion of the OT and second temple Jewish writers regarding the historicity of Adam, should be a determinative factor in our approach to the question of Adam.

The Old Testament. Dr. Collins cites many allusions to the creation narrative in general and to Genesis 1-5 in particular scattered throughout the Old Testament. References to creation are not rare – if one is looking for them. Creation and the role of God in creation is part of the world view of the original authors and audience of the text. The role of God in creation is an important component of the message of the text – explicit or assumed. Some examples are given below:

Psalms 8:

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.

Psalms 104: …O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all;

Mal. 2:15-16 refers back to the God ordained institution of marriage.

Exodus 20:11 refers back to Genesis 1, the six days of creation and the day of rest.

References or allusions to Eden are found in Ezekiel, Isaiah and Joel. References to the Fall may be found in Ecclesiastes 7, Hosea 6, and Job 31, although these are disputed by some. Reference to Adam is found in the genealogy in 1 Chronicles.

This list of OT references or allusions to the creation narrative is not exhaustive, but it does include the most significant references and many of the less explicit references. Dr. Collins makes his point that reference to Genesis 1-5 are not absent from the rest of the OT. However, it does not appear that the references are profound or extensive in their importance. Most, if not all, of them reflect an assumed background or are of a general nature.

Extra-Canonical Second Temple Literature. References to Genesis and creation are also common in the second temple literature – and here the reference to Adam, Eve, and the Fall is developed more completely. Dr. Collins considers references in Tobit, Ecclesiasticus or Sirach, The Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and in the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria.

There is a theme here – Dr. Collins makes the point that these second temple authors, along with some of the more specific OT references, take Adam and Eve as historical individuals in the same way they consider Abraham, Moses, and David historical figures.

However, the citation in Sirach 49:16 makes it clear that he did take Adam to be an historical person. He is recalling worthies from the history of Israel in chapters 44-49 … He begins with Enoch and Noah as the first named “famous men,” then goes on to Abraham and so forth through Biblical history. … He completes the run-up to Simon in 49:16:

Shem and Seth were honored among men, and Adam above every living being in the creation.

The way he mentions all these men in this context indicates that he took all of them as historical figures. (p. 75)

Philo of Alexandria may be an exception, but Josephus wrote in a manner that intends to relate history and does not take an allegorical approach to scripture or the Jewish tradition. In the Antiquities (1.2.3, line 67) he calls Adam “the first man, made from the earth.”

The second temple literature also contains specific references to the Fall. Dr. Collins quotes the Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24 which refers to the creation of mankind in the image of God and the introduction of death through the devil’s envy and Sirach 24:25 which references the introduction of sin and death through a woman.

Dr. Collins sums up this section:

Thus in the period that bridges the Old Testament and the New, the Jewish authors most representative of the mainstream consistently treat Adam and Eve as actual people, at the head of the human race. (p. 76)

Evidence for Historicity of Gen. 1-5. The underlying current in Dr. Collins’s discussion of these references to Adam and Eve, or to Eden and the Fall is that the perspective of the OT and second temple writers on the historicity of Adam should influence our thinking about Adam and the Fall. Certainly there are some who will claim that the text of Gen. 1-5 was never meant to be interpreted literally and that the literal interpretation that causes us so much grief was a relatively late invention. Therefore we can and should abandon this interpretation. I am not an expert on this literature and cannot put all of the references into sufficient context to judge the belief of the various writers about the historicity of Adam.

I will contend, however, that all of the writers are sufficiently distant from the actual events of the past, hidden in the mists of antiquity, that the beliefs of these writers are not a determinative factor. Dr. Collins may very well be correct in his analysis that they believed their cultural history and wrote with the assumption that Adam was a unique historical individual. But this belief does not provide evidence on any level for the actual historicity of Adam.

There are two points to consider here. First the period of time from the origins of humanity [possibly hundreds of thousands of years - skinhead], to the development of civilization [possibly tens of thousands of years - skinhead], to the very early history of Israel (say 1000 to 2000 years BC) was without much in the way of concrete record. Stories were passed along. Sumerian and Akkadian texts have been found – and their relationship to the OT narratives help us understand the context of the OT. But the connections are tenuous and distant.

Second, the authors of the OT and the second temple literature had nothing to go on except the stories of their cultural history. They also had no reason to question the historicity of their cultural story. Without impetus to question, the fact that the story was generally accepted and assumed in their writing is unsurprising. In many respects the background is incidental to primary intent of the OT and second temple texts.

I expect that there will be some significant difference of opinion here, and some who will want to question, clarify or refine the issues, so I will stop here and ask the question.

Does it matter if the writers of the OT and second temple literature thought the creation narrative of Genesis 1-5 was historically accurate?

Does it matter if they thought Adam was a historical individual? Why or why not?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If you have comments please visit The Search for the Historical Adam 5 at Jesus Creed.