Athanasius views of Creation

Here is a great excerpt from Athanasius' book "on the Incarnation" that presents his views of creation. It is valuable for seeing the traditional and classic christian views of creation that were strongly and clearly communicated already 300-400 years after Christ's death. I am not well versed with the "creation debate", but I think any christian who tries to reconcile the science of evolution with the teaching of Scripture should not easily sidestep or wipe away these two pillars of christian thought: (1) There is a mind behind the universe and (2) God created "ex-nihilo" out of nothing- he was pre-existent before matter. I would be interested to see how. (For a website supporting the dialogue between orthodox christianity and modern science see http://biologos.org/) 

(2) In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all.

Others take the view expressed by Plato, that giant among the Greeks. He said that God had made all things out of pre-existent and uncreated matter, just as the carpenter makes things only out of wood that already exists. But those who hold this view do not realize that to deny that God is Himself the Cause of matter is to impute limitation to Him, just as it is undoubtedly a limitation on the part of the carpenter that he can make nothing unless he has the wood. How could God be called Maker and Artificer if His ability to make depended on some other cause, namely on matter itself? If He only worked up existing matter and did not Himself bring matter into being, He would be not the Creator but only a craftsman.

Then, again, there is the theory of the Gnostics, who have invented for themselves an Artificer of all things other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. These simply shut their eyes to the obvious meaning of Scripture. For instance, the Lord, having reminded the Jews of the statement in Genesis,

“He Who created them in the beginning made them male and female . . . ,” and having shown that for that reason a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife, goes on to say with reference to the Creator, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” 

How can they get a creation independent of the Father out of that? And, again, St. John, speaking all inclusively, says,

“All things became by Him and without Him came nothing into being.”

How then could the Artificer be someone different, other than the Father of Christ?

(3) Such are the notions which men put forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the divine teaching of the Christian faith. From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word. He says as much in Genesis:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;4

and again through that most helpful book The Shepherd,

“Believe thou first and foremost that there is One God Who created and arranged all things and brought them out of non-existence into being.”5

Paul also indicates the same thing when he says,

“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which we see now did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared.”6

C.S. Lewis on reading classics (from his introduction to Athanasius' "on the incarnation")

Some great wisdom from C.S. Lewis about reading classic books and a "mere christianity" passed down throughout the ages that can challenged our fashionable modern attempts at christianity. the preface and the whole book can be found here

Introduction

by C. S. Lewis

here is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

Quote from Noll on "Christian Thinking about the World"

Mark Noll on christians thinking about the world from his book "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" (pg.130) 

"For Christian thinking about the world, the key question is what happens to a community when it tries to work out a Christian orientation to, say, the conundrums of modern nuclear physics, to the complexities of health care reform, to the meaning of traditional legal principles for a pluralistic society, to the interpretation of classic texts, to efforts at evaluating Communism in the twentieth century, to the issue of how music reinforces or subverts traditional morality, to the debate over which books should be assigned as the literary canon- that is, to the whole range of modern questions in which it is absolutely essential to exercise sensitivity concerning the interpreter's stance over against the data being interpreted, criticism about the way pre-commitments influence conclusion, and critical awareness of the symbiotic connections between methods and results. If that community's habits of mind concerning those things to which the community pays most diligent attention and accords highest authority- that is, to the Bible and Christian theology- are defined by naive and uncritical assumptions about the way to study or think about anything, so will its efforts to promote Christian thinking about the world be marked by naivete and an absence of rigorous criticism."

Difficult Topics and Doubting Thomas

I had some great discussions today with coworkers about the authorship of the Pentateuch and how to handle such topics in a school setting like ours. It reminded me of something I wrote a while ago on how difficult topics should be treated: 

It is undoubtable in the process of continued learning that many staff will wrestle with difficult passages and theological quandaries that have no simple or immediate answer. These discussions consist of but are not limited to topics such as: creation/evolution, historical adam, mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, historiography and the Bible, inerrancy and authority of scripture, the nature of the historical Jesus, justification by faith, gender roles in ministry and marriage, calvinism/arminiasm, the nature of God’s foreknowledge and various views of the second coming. Those who think there are only two views on all of these above issues, my view and the wrong view or the traditional view and the liberal view, do not do justice to the complex and difficult nature of these topics and the reality of multiple interpretations throughout church history and the church today.

Many of the above topics have been made into book series that display four or five views on each issue, indicating there is more than one “evangelical/christian” view on many of these issues. It is possible and likely that some in the SBS community will disagree with this point or seek to phrase it differently or remove a few of the topics above. That’s fine, disagreement is great for conversation and that is the point- how do we handle the disagreements and tensions that arise as we continue to learn? It is my personal opinion that we ought to encounter the plurality of interpretation and theological viewpoints with humbleness and energetic seeking after the truth; we should seek not to allow fear, name-calling, pride and one voice louder than the others to dominate and steer the conversation. We should seek to avoid both knee-jerking reactions to all things different and a gullible embracing of everything as long as it’s not orthodoxy.  If Jesus is the “way, truth and life” than we as his disciples have nothing to fear from serious engagement in learning truth, for all truth is subservient to him. It is absolutely essential to note here that what are talking about is in the domains of personal wrestling and private conversation not public profession or instructive teaching in the classroom. To talk about what we allow staff to think and question and what we allow staff to teach is to talk about two different things, it is important to realize the difference. Many of these discussions that are wrestled with among staff are not things that need to be thrown out in a lecture or student small group setting. And for that matter it is not even the aim of this program to force questions and challenging views on staff. The question remains though of how to handle staff (and students for that matter) who naturally and personally have these questions arise on their own and seek to privately wrestle through these things (not teach them). I propose that we should treat the serious questions, doubts and challenging views existing in the church today as Jesus treated doubting Thomas. Not with the idea that we are perfect like Jesus and all who question are doubters, but rather encounter the honest questions with love and a simple showing of the evidence (in this case the holes in his hands). So we must encounter these topics of difficulty that have a wide range of interpretation with both love and the simple exchange of evidence from both sides.

A few blogs on Higher Education and Scholarship

Surfing the blog world today and came across a few blogs with the same subject and all of them good.


1. James K.A. Smith on Courageous Scholarship http://forsclavigera.blogspot.tw/

2. Michael Bird's Advice to Christian Scholars

3. Roger Olson on Academic Freedom, Statements of Faith and Christian Universities



I will include below the full text of James K.A. Smith's blog...it's shorter and really good...as well as the video from Michael Bird.

James K.A. Smith:

On "Courage" in the (Christian) Academy

[a few thoughts composed on my iPhone on the shore of Little Platte Lake]

Someone has said that academic squabbles are so nasty only because they are so unimportant. Nonetheless, many academics like to see themselves as "courageous"--exhibiting intellectual heroism, taking stands that are unpopular, leading to some kind of "martyrdom."  This is the kind of "courage" you claim when you've dodged the draft and type with hands never blemished by a callous. 

This self-understanding of academic "courage" takes specific forms among Christian scholars, and is perhaps ramped up by adding religious stakes to the mix. Again, the scholar likes to imagine himself or herself as "courageous" for saying unpopular things, for speaking truth to power, for questioning the status quo. 

There are "progressive" versions of this in which the courageous scholar-martyr is marginalized by evangelicalism for taking unpopular stands that are nonetheless supported by "science" or "justice" or "democracy" or "experience" or what have you. As a result s/he is critcized, bullied, rejected, ostracized, ignored, excluded, etc. But the courageous scholar is willing to endure such sacrifices for the sake of Truth, Justice, Science, Progress, Diversity, etc. 

But progressives don't have the corner on the courage market. There are conservative Christian scholars who tell themselves the same story: they are willing to risk marginalization, exclusion, derision, even appearing the fool in order to stand up for The Truth against academic trends, intellectual fads, and the temptations that roll into the university under the guise of Progress.

But when one looks at these scenarios more closely, I think one will see that, in fact, neither is risking very much. Those "courageous" progressives don't really value the opinions or affirmations of conservative evangelicalism anyway. What they really value, long for, and try to curry is the favor of "the Enlightened"--whether that's the mainstream academy or the progressive chattering class who police our cultural mores of tolerance. Sure, these "courageous" progressives will take fire from conservative evangelicals--but that's not a loss or sacrifice for them. Indeed, their own self-understanding is fueled by such criticism.  In other words, these stands don't take "courage" at all; they don't stand to lose anything with those they truly value.

Similarly, "courageous" conservatives who "stand up" to the progressive academy aren't putting much at risk because that's not where they look for validation and it's not where their professional identities are invested. They are usually "populists" (in a fairly technical sense of the word) whose professional lives are much more closely tethered to the church and popular opinion.  And in those sectors, "standing up to" the academy isn't a risk at all--it's a way to win praise. When your so-called contrarian stands win favor from those you value most...well, it's hard to see how "courage" applies. 

But here's what we don't often see: Christian scholars who have vested their professional lives in the mainstream academy willing to take stands that would be unpopular at the MLA or APA or AAR. Conversely, we don't see many conservative scholars willing to defend positions that would jeapordize their favored status with popular evangelicalism. 

Now both of those options would require courage.

Two talks on productivity

After two weeks of vacation I am jumping back into work...yesterday I decided to listen to a few random talks on productivity from youtube....It was inspiring and had some good practical ideas.

Robert Jenson on the Reading the OT

I was back in the states for two weeks on vacation and the only talk I listened to during that two weeks was this one. My brother was listening to it and I sat along. Enjoyed it. It was my first time listening to Robert Jenson, but it will not be my last.