Level: Difficult (wordy, academic style, knowledge of enlightenment and higher critical philosophies/theories is helpful); Short – 230 pages
Summary
The book has 13 chapters – Intro, How the Concept of Christian Science Emerged, Defects That Clung to Christian Science, Positive Science, Evaluation of Positivism, Consequence of the Verdict, The Concept of Science, The Natural Sciences, The Humanities, Theological Science, Revelation, The Blessing of Christianity for Science, and A Christian University. There is also a lengthy Editors’ Introduction, which explains some of the translation issues and gives a little bit of background in to Bavinck’s life and situation.
Written in 1904, but looking back over the previous 50-70 years, the book focuses on changes to society and to the university system that has come from recent official moves towards liberalism and secularism. Bavinck is focused specifically on The Netherlands, but also broadly on the post-enlightenment and higher critical movements of Europe in general.
There is a also a good explanation of what Bavinck means by ‘science’, which was essentially synonymous with ‘learning’ or ‘knowledge’, and science was often still in the title of disciplines (e.g. Theological Science). The book was also originally titled Christian Science, which the editors changed due to the current American religious movement. However, the phrase is used throughout the book.
It should also be noted that this is not a discussion of Christianity vs. Science, in the way of some of our modern American discussions.
My Thoughts
I’ll get the negative out of the way first, if you haven’t read Bavinck before, it can be difficult. This may only bother me, but he has sentences that run for paragraphs, and paragraphs that run for pages. Also, he is distinctly a product of his time, the theological and philosophical arguments that were raging at the time are front and center in his writing. While most people are probably familiar with Kant, I’d guess that Schleiermacher is less well known (though maybe not to the type of people that would read a Bavinck book), let alone the list of other German philosophers and theologians that have faded into obscurity. The editors make short notes as to whom he is referring and what they did, but without some background knowledge, I’m not sure how impactful it is. The notes help for those who were contemporary politicians in The Netherlands, because their thoughts/arguments are pretty straight forward, but the writings of the academics and their nuance may be lost.
That being said, so much of his writing then is still applicable to us today. It is odd as an American, hearing the arguments about the Government funding private (including religious) schools, but most of Europe started in a different place than we did. They are coming from an official (confessional) religion and then moving secular. So, often ‘equality’ means funding all viewpoints/religions equally, while here it means funding none. For a more modern/current take on these issues, look up Michael Bird, as he writing/arguing some of these same issues right now in Australia (where the Government does fund all schools).
There are some esoteric arguments in the first few chapters, especially about ‘positivism’, but especially starting in the Humanities chapter to the finish, the writing sounds very contemporary. He points out the issues/problems of ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ argument of morality, while also criticizing the ‘private matter’ of a ‘preference and taste’ view of choosing a ‘personal religion’. The Theological Science chapter discusses how theology can/should be taught and the issues of many schools moving (in some cases required) to religion departments; pointing out that if there is no universal or deeper truth, then the studies of religion may as well move to History or Psychology departments, or if the Bible is just writings, why not a subset of Literature? Finally, the University chapter is wild it how it almost predicted the future. He feared the political re-shuffling of the professors based on ‘openness’ and ‘tolerance’ not actually being use the way the word implies. He states, ‘according to the doctrine, there is room for all, but according to life, only for us and our friends. If you ever see studies/surveys of professors today and see their very narrow set of beliefs/viewpoints (for the most part), you can see he is correct. He even points to the fact that professors come from other professors and is less about how might be the ‘best’ and more about ‘who do we want to get along with’, which is just interesting to see that written 120 years ago.
Overall, as is just about everything from Bavinck, this was a great book, he is truly a talented and gifted writing/academic. I just wonder how many people would benefit from this book, or rather who the audience would be. So, if you like Bavinck and are exciting more of his works are being translated to English, this will be pretty great. If you are in academia, you would also benefit. Obviously, some of the issues are a bit dated and the refences to contemporary Dutch politics isn’t always applicable. However, if you are studying or wanting to learn more about history and how we’ve gotten to our modern moment, this could be helpful. So, if you are looking for something, this book is great, but I do think you need to be looking to get much out of it.
*I received a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Level: Moderately difficult (four of the five are academics and some of the terms/phrases used reflect this), medium length (300+)
Summary
I’m finding this harder to summarize than you may think. If you grew up in the conservative Christian world, as I did, you’ve doubtless heard the word ‘inerrancy’ without much clear meaning, making this book incredibly compelling. You might not know that the inerrancy as you know it came from a relatively recent development and statement called the ‘Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy‘ from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. This book is more a debate on the statement, specifically its use, than inerrancy writ large, though that is discussed. If you haven’t read the statement, go read it before reading this book. Due to this, and the multitude of discussions that can come from the topic, this book is different than others. So in this series have clear delineations – the world is thousands vs. billions of years old, the millennium is pre/post rapture, etc. – yet, even in those, often, the writers speak past each other and don’t always remain in topic. This is the most dramatic of those instances, except, the essays are so far apart, that it actually works, for the most part.
This is one where you need to read the introduction, they explain that they sent these authors the assignment or reacting to the Statement, then sending back three problematic verses that challenge the statement. The editors then editors then selected three of the verses and each author was to respond. The authors were chosen to be on different spectrum of evangelism, and in different disciplines with Frank/Vanhoozer being theologians, Bird (who wrote one of the best systematics out there)/Enss as Biblical Scholars, and Mohler being a historical theologian (if you listen to his podcast, you know that he changes his title often, but in reality, at this point, he is a political pundit).
In the intro, the editors point out how different the essays ended up being, and so grouped them differently than planned, so they broke the book into three parts – Perspectives on Inerrancy and the Past (with Mohler writing what he calls the ‘classical view’ and Enns writing that inerrancy isn’t what the Bible does), then a break into the International View from Bird who writes that inerrancy isn’t necessary, and finally, Renewing and Recasting Inerrancy (Vanhoozer writing for an ‘Augustinian View’ and Franke writing the Racasting essay). As is typical in this series, after each essay were responses from the other authors. Unlike others, there was no rejoinder, probably due to length (and possible the jumbled way the essays mixed), which was a good decision overall. While this likely had the best Intro, it probably had the worst Conclusion of any in the series, but it still made some good points.
My Thoughts
I understand why the editors set it up they way they did, I’m sure it was a long and agonizing debates, trying the suffel these essays around in a coherent flow. As I wrote, I came up with other ways to rearrange, but as I finished, all but one were clearly inferior. However, I do think there is a better way (I doubt my idea is unique, and it was surely discussed and discarded for reasons, likely behind the scenes, of which I am unaware), that would also flow better in the typical ‘views’ sense – I’d keep Mohler first, as the cheerleader view, then group Bird/Vanhoozer together as generally supporting inerrancy in concept (maybe they disagree) but not supporting the Statement/ICBI or how it has been used, and then finishing the book with Enns/Franke as supporting neither the Statement/ICBI, how it has been used, nor the concept itself. This layout also accomplishes having a theologian/scholar in each section.
That being said, I was excited to read this book, it has been on my list for about five years before I finally got around to it, which is too bad, I wish I had read it years ago. I don’t want to sound fanboy, but just having Enns, Bird, and Vanhoozer in one book is worth the cost. I had never heard of Franke before, and after reading his essay, I see that is probably due to him being outside of my perspective, so that is a nice addition. Overall, the book lives up to the hype and is the best of the Counterpoint Series, and contro a comment from Bird in the book, the place I would recommend someone start if they want to dive into theological topics. I will attempt some brief thoughts on each essay and then an additional recommendation on how I think the book could have been improved.
Few Christian authors today have the rhetorical flourishes and persuasive writing abilities of Mohler. I read his essay and came away think, ‘how is this a debate, all Christians should affirm the Statement as written’, even if I was a little skeptical of his historical claims. Then you read the responses, which were universal (in a way unlike any other essay) in pointing out that he didn’t actually say anything. Again with universal agreement, the responses criticized both his use of classical and history, as well him more advocating his interpretation as inerrant that the Biblical text. In this sense, his essay very aptly pointed out all that is wrong with the statement and how it has been used, that the remainder of the book will point to. But man, is his writing good. I think now (almost 10 years after writing the book) that he has solved CRT, he can move on to a life fully in politics.
I think I have read all of Enns’ book so far (if you haven’t, this is probably a good intro to Enns), so I mostly new what he was going to say. His essay was twofold in pointing to our modern view of ‘inerrancy’ and reading the Bible as if it were written by journalist is a completely different way the Bible would have been read for thousands of years, which is why there are clear contradictions (but only insofar as we have overly literalized our reading of the text) and that we are making a category mistake in the way we approach the Bible. The second part criticizes the Statement/ICBI itself as being a small subset of evangelicals from the beginning, being a political statement, and essentially arguing a hermeneutic more than a view of scripture. While the Statement saw the Bible has truth in what it affirms, but then states that science cannot overturn the Bible. Whether you want to admit it or not, this latter statement necessarily implies a literalist interpretation. Enns calls the statement an intellectual disaster for evangelicals.
Bird’s essay is probably the best of the book for me, as I tend to agree with most of his scholarly and theological points. He is also an outsider from the American evangelical world (which is why he doesn’t know that the Canada has its own football, distinct from American, or that only yankees say ‘iced-tea’, Southerns says sweet tea or simple, tea), which separates him from the Moral Majority/Political right playbook interpretation of scripture that Mohler is beholden to. Bird is also funny, you get funny visions like ‘Kim Kardashian attending a Jihadist for Jesus fundraiser’ and bad puns like ‘not for all the iced(sic)-tea in Kentucky (presumably pointed at Mohler?). Bird affirms what he calls infallibility, which is an actual historical use and term. He agrees with most(all?) of the points of the Statement, but mostly criticized for its narrow view of interpretation and the fact that the ICBI is about as ‘international’ as the winner of the ‘World’ Series (see, that’s funny). He rightly points to it being used as a bully pulpit of hermeneutics in that if you don’t agree, you are rejecting scripture and therefore God, and that there are over a billion Christians around the world who do not insist on inerrancy nor does the Westminster or London Confessions use the word.
Vanhoozer’s essay similarly affirms infallibility and most of the words of the Statement, while criticizing its use and interpretation, but from the (American evangelical) inside. He differs slightly from Bird in that while Bird seems to say drop it or rewrite it entirely (this time actually internationally), vanhoozer would like it to be revised. The crux of his argument is an interpretation based on Augustine’s view of scripture, which took a high view, stating that if something seemed wrong it was either the translation (though he was referring to the poor latin copies in existence in that day, during the decline of Kiona Greek) or in his understanding. Yet, it seems Augustine would reject the Statement, as he doesn’t think it has to do with science (he did not believe in a six day creation, though not due to ‘science’ as it was in his day). Vanhoozer also points to the ‘affirm’ piece of inerrancy (which is somewhat contradicted elsewhere in the statement) in that the Bible is not a textbook for geology/biology (also, an actual historical view as Calvin said ask an astrologer). Vanhoozer is a long writer and uses pretty high end academic terms, so get ready.
With all due respect to Franke and his position, I don’t have much to respond to. While I really enjoyed all of his responses (probably the best responder behind Bird), his essay was, well, odd. He clearly rejects inerrancy as a concept, but not in the concrete way that Enns does. In fact, I’m not entirely sure what he believes. He refers to an understanding of the Bible as a ‘missional community’, and at times sounds like a charismatic/pentecostal while at others sounds more like a ‘classical’ liberal protestant. He refers to himself as post-liberal, post-modern, and post-foundationalist. As with the others, he had many criticisms of how the statement is used and I found myself in agreement or learning for these, but not much from his positive articulation. He simarlily uses high academic language, including concept I had to go look up, such as foundationalsim.
He did bring up one interesting critique of this volume itself, that it is five white guys talking about inerrancy. While that is a little too reductionistic, as I think it diminishes Bird’s view as a non-American (though maybe he deserves it for disparaging football), just for the problem of being white.That being said, various surveys put black Christians as making up about 1/4 to 1/6 of the US Christian population, depending on how you define things. Let’s meet in the middle can call it 1/5 and there are five authors of this book. I would have been very interested to hear a black church (either a historically black denomination or a SBC pastor who serves in a black community) theologian/scholar talk about the view on inerrancy in the black community. I think this would have been more valuable than Franke’s essay (I’m an American in the South, so my apologies to the international readers, as this clearly would benefit them less).
A few other concluding thoughts, the attempt to interpret the three scriptures was a mixed bag, but perfectly illustrates the issues of true ‘inerrancy’. I don’t know if this is an academic thing, or just because it is a ‘Christian’ publication, but I liked that everyone praised each other before disagreeing with them, I think that attitude of humility is sorely needed right now. While it was disjointed at times, I think the diversity of perspective or even essay topic helpful and interesting. I think for anyone interested in inerrancy, Biblical interpretation, Biblical studies, theology, American evangelicalism, or even study the Bible, this book is a must read.
Monday Morning Theologian 