mARANATHA BAPTIST
theological
maranatha baptist seminary
volume 4, number 2 | FALL 2014
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Maranatha Baptist University Maranatha Baptist Seminary
Volume 4, Number 2
FALL 2014
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal www.mbu.edu/TheStudy
ISSN 2160-1623
Published semi-annually by Maranatha Baptist University and Maranatha Baptist Seminary 745 W. Main Street Watertown, Wisconsin 53094 920.261.9300 www.mbu.edu www.mbu.edu/seminary
Marty Marriott, President Larry R. Oats, Editor
Communication and books for review should be addressed to the Editor: seminary@mbu.edu, or Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 745 W. Main Street Watertown, WI 53094 The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is published two times a year (spring and fall). The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is a ministry of Maranatha Baptist University and Maranatha Baptist Seminary. Copyright Š 2014 by Maranatha Baptist University. All rights reserved. Materials in this publication may not be reproduced without the permission of the Editor, except for reproduction for classroom use by students or professors.
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Volume Four, Number Two
INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________ 97 A THEOLOGY OF SEPARATION _______________________________ 99 Larry Oats A BRIEF EVALUATION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY _________ 113 Fred Moritz THE WIZARDRY OF OSS: LIFE IN THE LAND OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROMISE _______________________________________________ 143 Jonathan Rehfeldt GOD EXISTS: THEREFORE I LAUGH ___________________________ 169 Dan Mielke BOOK REVIEW ___________________________________________ 187
Introduction The purpose of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is to provide for our constituency, and for others who may be interested, articles from a Baptist, dispensational, and conservative theological position. Articles are academic and practical, biblical and theological, focused on the needs of the pastor and church leader, and, above all, faithful to God’s Word. The education of a person in ministry, whether he or she is serving in vocational ministry or as a volunteer, is a continuing process. For that reason, Maranatha publishes the Theological Journal to assist individuals in their ongoing education. Through the Journal, Sunesis, and other venues, Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary seeks to assist God’s servants in whatever ways we are able. Our faculty are available to speak in churches and conferences on the topics on which they write, as well as in other areas of their expertise. We trust that you will be blessed and challenged as you read this issue of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal. Marty Marriott President Maranatha Baptist University Larry R. Oats Editor www.mbu.edu www.mbu.edu/seminary www.mbu.edu/TheStudy
MBTJ 4/2: 99-112
A THEOLOGY OF SEPARATION Larry R. Oats1 In the last issue of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal I wrote an article on the Theology of Fellowship. This current article is the flipside of the earlier article. A theology of separation needs to be part of a theology of fellowship. This article will be limited to the New Testament. A study of separation in the Old Testament would be a rich study, for God makes it clear that his holiness requires separation. God removed Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. God removed Noah in an ark, separated from the doomed world. He told Abram to leave his family and country. He instructed the nation of Israel to eliminate all Gentiles in the Promised Land so that the Jews would not be contaminated by the wickedness of those living at that time in what would become their new world. When they chose idolatry over their Lord, God placed them in a foreign land where they were not only required to be a part of a pagan culture, but they were also under the thumb of those pagans, until they were ready to return to their land. The New Testament also lays out requirements for separation. This article will look at passages that demand separation from unbelievers and from believers alike and seek to apply the New Testament teaching to the current situation. Separation in the church age was evidenced in numerous situations. The Donatist controversy in the early church resulted in the separation of a sizable number of African churches from the proto-Roman Catholic Church. The Anabaptists prior to and during the Reformation practiced both church and personal separation. The 1 Dr. Oats is the Dean of Maranatha Baptist Seminary and Professor of Systematic Theology.
100
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Reformers separated from the Church at Rome and from each other. Puritans, unable to purify the Church of England, separated and formed their own Separatist churches. Roger Williams, seeking a pure church in Massachusetts, found himself required to separate from those who failed to obey God’s Word. This article will focus its attention on ecclesiastical separation, the separation of the church as a body, rather than personal separation, which is the separation of an individual from a particular body or the decision of an individual to refrain from participation in a particular practice. Separation from Unbelievers The requirement of separation from unsaved individuals is generally accepted by Bible believers. A century ago those who took the name Fundamentalist to demonstrate that they believed that there were certain “fundamentals� of the faith that could not be given up without also giving up biblical Christianity stood against the liberals in the mainline denominations in America. They initially sought to remove the Bible deniers from the denominations and return them to a purer state. Having failed in that, they left the denominations and created conventions, associations, and fellowships that were home to those who accepted the truths of Scripture. Others gave up on such connections and began independent churches that stood alone. Separation became a watchword for these people. Even when the evangelicals separated from the fundamentalists about a half century ago, the evangelicals practiced a measure of separation. No denomination that was part of the liberal National Council of Churches could join the evangelical National Association of Evangelicals. One of the early leaders of this new evangelicalism, John Ockenga, argued against the separatism of the Fundamentalists. Nevertheless, he separated from the ecumenically oriented United Church of
A Theology of Separation
101
Christ (after the merger of 1957–61) and helped organize the Conservative Congregational Christian Churches.2 Separation from unbelievers is clearly taught in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:2. It is common for Christians to apply Paul’s instruction here to marriages and close business associations between believers and unbelievers. Paul taught against marrying outside the faith, and wisdom should be exercised in all business relationships. Yet, in this passage Paul focused on all associations with unbelievers that led to infidelity to Christ, particularly by involvement with pagan rituals and idol worship. Paul wanted the Corinthian believers to separate themselves from these practices.3
Paul instructed the Corinthians not to be ἑτεροζυγέω (“unequally yoked” which is literally, “harnessed to another of a different kind”). This may be a reference to Deuteronomy 22:10, where the Jews were commanded not to plow with both an ox and a donkey or to Leviticus 19:19 where the same Greek word is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) to prohibit the mating of different kinds of livestock. Elsewhere Paul spoke of a true yokefellow (σύζυγος, someone who shares the same yoke) as a person who has joined Paul in his ministry (Phil 4:3). “Those who harness themselves together with unbelievers will soon find themselves plowing Satan’s fields. One can only be a true yokefellow (Phil 4:3) with a fellow Christian.”4 In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul realized that eliminating all contact with the world is an impossibility (1 Cor 5:10). The Larry Dean Sharp, Carl Henry: Neo-Evangelical Theologian (D.Min. thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1972), 21–22. 3 Richard L. Pratt, Jr., I & II Corinthians, Holman New Testament Commentary 7 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 375. 4 David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, The New American Commentary 29 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 331. 2
102
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
“unequal yoke,” therefore, does not refer to casual contacts with the lost. It has to do with serving together in church and ministry activities. The warning is against compromising the integrity of one’s faith. The idea of the “unequal yoke” implies a relationship which will do damage to the Christian’s testimony. The Corinthians were not to be yoked with unbelievers, those who do not accept the truth of Scripture. The ἄπιστος (“unbeliever”) is Paul’s opposer, whether saved or lost, although the context would focus this primarily on the unregenerate (see 1 Cor 6:6; 7:12, 13, 14 (2x), 15; 10:27; 14:22 (2x), 23, 24; 2 Cor 4:4). Paul argued against fellowship and in favor of separation from the lost by using a string of similar questions to emphasize the importance of separation. Paul’s first question is, What fellowship does righteousness have with unrighteousness? Fellowship here is μετοχή, a “joining together.” The two elements to be kept apart are righteousness and unrighteousness. “The Corinthian Christians were surrounded by pagan values and practices. Just because they have been sealed by the Spirit does not mean that they can be careless about their relationships and associations with the world.”5 The unrighteousness that Paul speaks of is actually “lawlessness,” the absence of law or lawful works. Righteous activity cannot join together with unlawful activity. One reason righteousness and unrighteousness cannot be joined is that there is a difference in how believers and unbelievers think (v 14). What communion does light have with darkness? “Communion” in this verse is κοινωνία – doctrinal agreement and a resultant partnership in ministry. Believers are called out of darkness when they are saved; they should not go back into darkness in order to participate in some kind of ministry. There is a difference concerning whom believers serve (v 15). What concord does Christ have with Belial? Christ is the 5
Garland, 2 Corinthians, 332.
A Theology of Separation
103
head of the forces of righteousness. Belial (a name for Satan) is the head of the forces of evil. “Concord” is the word συμφώνησις, from which comes the English “symphony.”6 Paul is writing to those for whom Christ had died. He has emphasized that God had reconciled the world to himself. He spoke of the hardships he had suffered to further the gospel (see 2 Cor 5:14–15, 20; 6:3–10). “Now he wanted them to choose for Christ and follow him but to reject Belial and everything that he represents. In parallel terms, the Corinthians must choose faith instead of unbelief, the Christian life instead of worldly ways.”7 There is also a difference in how believers approach God (v 15). What part does the believer have with the unbeliever? μερίς refers to receiving part of the gain of an operation or business venture. Here Paul emphasizes the distinction between the believer (πιστός) and the unbeliever (ἄπιστος). The unbeliever is someone who does not accept the faith. When Paul began this section, he used “unbelievers.” Now he uses the singular, moving from a general statement to a more specific personal application. There is a difference in the worship of believers and unbelievers (v 16). This is the final question that Paul asks and is the only question that focuses on a specific area of separation. What agreement does the temple of God have with idols? Συγκατάθεσις (“agreement”), used only here in the New Testament, “refers to some kind of consensual affiliation, such as a pact joining persons together in common cause.”8 It is used for an approval “by putting
sυμφώνησις is used only here in the New Testament, but a related noun is used in Luke 15:25 and is translated “music.” 7 Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary 19 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 230. 8 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 336. 6
104
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
together the votes.”9 Paul had already defined the “temple of God” as the church in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17. Plural pronouns are used here, similar to 1 Corinthians 3:16-17. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 refers to the individual believer as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Here in 2 Corinthians Paul is drawing a comparison between the church and the pagan temples where the gentile Corinthians practiced their idolatry. Idolatry in Corinth was especially wicked. There is no room for idolatry among the church membership because Christians are the temple of God. Paul concludes this passage with an argument for the practice of separation (v 17a) with quotations from Exodus 25:8, Exodus 29:45 and Leviticus 26:12. Here Paul begins a string of quotations from the Old Testament. The conclusion is for believers to come out from their presence. The tense indicates Paul wanted them to do it now. Failure to separate in moral holiness causes believers to cease being a valid temple of God. The purpose of separation is seen in vv 17b–18. God will receive or welcome believers into his company; this is the idea of the temple again. God will be a father to the righteous and the righteous will be children to him. The conclusion is clear. Believers who seek to be obedient to Scripture are to have no fellowship (no spiritual partnering or associating in worship or service) with unbelievers. Separation from Believers Separation from unbelievers is not the only instruction given concerning fellowship and separation. There are also instructions given to separate from believers who engage in specific kinds of actions. In fact, there is more specific instruction concerning separation from believers than from unbelievers. 9 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1931), 4: 237.
A Theology of Separation
105
Separation from Those who Sin Blatantly Paul gives instructions in 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 that the church is to separate from an immoral church member who is obviously unrepentant. From the language Paul uses, speaking of the wife of the individual’s father, rather than simply referring to her as the individual’s mother, it appears that the church member was having an immoral relationship with his step-mother. The sin was known to the church. Paul accused the church of pride (they were apparently congratulating themselves on their tolerance of diverse life– styles), a lack of mourning (which would indicate a tolerance of gross sin, a sin which even the Romans would not commit), and a failure to do anything about the sin. There are, therefore, two problems in this section: the sin of one individual and the sin of the congregation as a whole. Paul commanded the church to remove the sinning brother from the membership of the church. The individual Paul was referring to is obviously a member of the church, and Paul apparently assumed that he was a believer. There are numerous interpretations concerning being “delivered to Satan” and the “destruction of the flesh,” but for the sake of this article, none of them makes a difference. The key point to take away from this part of 1 Cor 5 is that the church has an obligation to separate itself from unrepentant sinners whose sins damage the testimony and character of the church. In the section following this discussion (1 Cor 5:6ff), Paul does not advocate this same kind of separation from unsaved fornicators and a whole list of other kinds of sinners. One implication of Paul’s addition of this section is that here is a list of sinful activities which are cause for church discipline, not just living with one’s stepmother. A second implication is that biblical fellowship and separation does not refer to friendships and interactions with unsaved neighbors, coworkers, family, and friends. Otherwise, Paul could not advocate separation in the first half of this chapter and association with the same kind of people in the last half. Paul
106
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
clearly describes the biblical doctrine of fellowship; believers cannot be spiritual partners in ministry with someone who lives in willful sin and rebellion against God’s teachings. Similarly, believers can associate with unbelievers who practice these same sins, but they cannot fellowship with them. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul commanded his readers in a forceful way to separate. This was not a simple suggestion. This was a command made “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” to stay away or separate from a brother who is walking disorderly. Paul is clearly speaking of a saved person. The problem with this brother is not doctrinal. He is walking ἀτάκτως (“disorderly”). This refers to walking “in defiance of good order, disorderly . . . apparently without respect for established custom or received instruction.”10 This would mean a lifestyle that does not match up with the requirements of Scripture. Paul repeats this word in verse 11. Paul focuses on the problem of not working to support oneself. “Although the context of the idle is definitely in mind, this encouragement and the instructions that follow (vv. 14– 15) could apply to a multitude of situations in the early church and today. What could be more Christ-like than persisting in well-doing even when the beneficiaries of love in action do not deserve or appreciate the sacrifice made on their behalf?”11 The believer’s first requirement in verse 14 is σημειόω, “to take special notice of, mark.”12 The church is to publicly identify the man who refuses to obey God’s Word. Second, the church is not to συναναμίγνυμι, to “mingle, associate BDAG, 148. D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, The New American Commentary 33 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 285. 12 BDAG, 921. 10 11
A Theology of Separation
107
with.”13 The fellowship of the church is to be removed from such a person. In verse 15, the church is not to regard him as an enemy, for he is a brother in Christ. Nevertheless, the church is to νουθετέω, “to counsel about avoidance or cessation of an improper course of conduct, admonish, warn, instruct.”14 The church is to warn this type of person concerning his error. The use of plural verbs and the plural “brothers” indicates that this is a corporate instruction, not a commandment given to an individual Christian. This instruction is predicated on the biblical concept of fellowship and separation; the church cannot partner with this kind of person in activities that are founded on the Spirit and seek to result in spiritual benefits. Separation from Those who Advocate Divisive Doctrine There are several passages of Scripture which instruct New Testament believers to separate from those who teach and promote false doctrine. This article will look only at two of these passages. Romans 16:17-18 In Romans 16:17-18, Paul instructed the church in Rome to σκοπέω (“mark”) and ἐκκλίνω (“avoid”) those who advocated divisive doctrine. “Mark” means “to pay careful attention to, look (out) for, notice.”15 Paul uses the word in Phil 3:17 to instruct the Philippians to mark those who were following him and imitate them. The term is used here to instruct the Romans to look out for those who cause divisions for the purpose of avoiding them. “Avoid” means “to keep away from, steer clear of.”16
13 14 15 16
BDAG, BDAG, BDAG, BDAG,
965. 679. 931. 304.
108
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Paul teaches that church members are to “mark” and “avoid” those who create διχοστασία “divisions” or “dissensions” and σκάνδαλον “stumblingblocks” by means of wrong doctrine. Dissension is listed as one of the works of the flesh in Gal 5:20. “There is an article with divisions (and another with obstacles); it is ‘the well-known divisions’ and not some hypothetical danger of which Paul warns.”17 These individuals were teaching lies to those who had learned the truth. Paul had not yet been to Rome, but the Romans were well aware of the truth. “Thus a departure from the Pauline teaching is a departure from the very tradition vouchsafed to the Romans when they believed. Paul did not believe that he was introducing novel doctrines to the Roman community.”18 There is nothing in the text that clearly declares whether these false teachers were saved or lost. Either way, they were creating factions and strife in the church. Instead of serving the Lord, they taught false doctrine for the sake of their own good. If these individuals were not part of the church at Rome, they were at least individuals known to the church; in that time it would have been difficult for non-Christians to advocate divisive doctrine among the church members. Everyone would have understood that the Roman pagans were not believers and their teachings unbiblical. The false teachers could have been Jewish unbelievers, but there was enough tension between the Jewish community and the church to keep unsaved Jews from teaching in the church. If these false teachers were Judaizers, it would appear that since Paul confronted them in the context of the church at Jerusalem, that the Judaizers at the very least claimed to be believers. Since Paul did not identify who these teachers were, it is best to focus attention on the teaching that the church is to defend itself against false teachers, saved or lost. 17 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 539. 18 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 802.
A Theology of Separation
109
1 Timothy 6:3-5 Three times in Paul’s first letter to Timothy he addressed false teachers. In 1 Tim 1:3 he instructed Timothy to command unnamed individuals to stop teaching false doctrines, particularly regarding myths and genealogies. Paul has apparently created a new verb, ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, literally “to teach a doctrine of a different kind.”19 This word comes into the English as “heterodoxy.” In 6:3 Paul defines “heterodoxy” as that which is contrary to “sound words” (which came from Jesus Christ) and contrary to the doctrine which conforms to godliness. “The standard for truth was the Old Testament, the words of Christ, and the teaching of the apostles. All else was wrong, false, untrue.”20 Who were these false teachers? In 1:3 Paul used the indefinite pronoun “certain ones.” In 1:19 Paul again referred to “certain ones.” In v 20, however, he named two of the false teachers—Hymenaeus and Alexander. These two men appear then to be the worst representatives or the ring-leaders of this group of false teachers.21 While Paul was not afraid to identify specific individuals in some contexts, in other places he hid identities. The implication is that in some specific cases it is appropriate to identify false teachers, while in other cases it is best to hide the identities. It would seem to be appropriate to identify leaders of the false teachers; it also seems to be appropriate to identify those who affect the local church the most. It also appears that where there is hope to correct the false teacher, his identity is kept hidden. George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 72. 20 Knute Larson, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Holman New Testament Commentary 9 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 145. 21 William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Commentary 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 57. 19
110
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
What were these men teaching? The first-century myths were not merely fairy tales; they were legends and stories used to promote immoral lifestyles. These stories were used as justification for behavior which was contrary to righteousness. Because these were apparently being accepted in the church at Ephesus, the teachers may have been using Old Testament stories, along with allegories developed out of those stories. The false teachers had “proof texts” for their own ideas, biases, and desires.22 The reference to endless genealogies “refers to histories and prophetic speculations rising out of guesswork and the desire to be different. Such people became the special interpreters of Scripture; they claimed special knowledge.”23 Paul rejected these false teachers and their stories because they promoted controversies within the church rather than God’s work. The teaching of these false teachers produces envy, disagreement, defamation, conjectures, and continuous arguing, everything that should not take place in a church. The faithful Christian is to withdraw from such a person. 24 The word is ἀφίστημι which means “to distance oneself from some pers. or thing.”25 Titus 3:10, 11 Paul did not treat unbelievers and believers in the same way. Unbelievers are ignorant of who God is; they do not know his goodness, power, or holiness. Christians, on the other hand “know God’s goodness, have experienced his grace and love, and are indwelt by his Holy Spirit. Paul Larson, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 145–146. 23 Ibid. 24 There is a textual problem with the end of verse 6. The instruction to withdraw is not found in the United Bible Society or the Nestle Aland New Testaments, but is found in the traditional text and the Pierpont and Robinson Majority New Testament. 25 BAGD, 157. 22
A Theology of Separation
111
recognized that arguing with false teachers pulled a person into their convoluted dialogues, accomplishing nothing. Therefore, he told Titus: Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time.”26 Paul sought to offer an opportunity for the αἱρετικός (“heretic” or divisive person) to repent. The goal of the warning is the repentance of the divisive person. If, however, he does not repent, then the church is to have nothing more to do with him. Here is a warning for everyone. Those who dabble in false ideas and theological oddities or those who sin and refuse to come to terms with their disobedience follow a dangerous path that leads to self-deception. It happens slowly as a person permits himself self-apportioned leniency, ignoring the warning signs, the rebukes, the sinful habits that engulf him. Through negligence and unbelief, these Christians become self-condemned. By willfully rejecting the truth, they pronounce judgment on themselves.27
There are several other similar passages. The reader is directed to Galatians 1:8, 9; 2 Timothy 3:5; 1 John 4:1-6; 2 John 7-11; and Revelation 2:14. Conclusion Ecclesiastical separation is the flipside of fellowship. A refusal to fellowship (in the sense of theological agreement and ministry which flows out of that agreement) reflects the lifestyle, positions, and values of a church and its members. Separation of a church as a body from individuals who are lost, who teach and advocate false doctrine, or who refuse to obey Paul’s teaching is clearly taught. It is a logical conclusion (and this author acknowledges that is logical, not a clearly declared conclusion) that if a church is to separate 26
Larson, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon,
386. 27
Ibid, 386–387.
112
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
from one individual who practices one of these sins, then it should separate from a body – church, association, or denomination – that practices or advocates such belief or action. Separation from churches or denominations which do not hold to orthodox theology is biblical. Luther separated from Rome. Calvin departed from Rome: “It is sufficient for me that it was necessary for us to withdraw from them, in order to approach to Christ.”28 J. Gresham Machen withdrew from the liberal Presbyterian church. Baptists abandoned the Northern Baptist Convention. This kind of separation does not violate the unity of the church, but instead preserves it. The basis of church unity is doctrine. Unity presupposes a membership with one another in agreement on the basics of Scripture. “The faith that avoids theological argument on behalf of Christianity’s distinctive doctrines is not the faith of the New Testament.”29
Calvin, Institutes, iv.2.5-6. Gordon Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 3: 294. 28 29
MBTJ 4/2: 113-141
A Brief Evaluation of Roman Catholic Theology Fred Moritz1 Bible believers should study Roman Catholic theology for several reasons. Numerically, Rome claims a significant Catholic population. The Pontifical Yearbook states that Catholicism claimed 1 billion, 214 million communicants around the world in 2013.2 In 2010 there were 63.4 million Catholics in the United States.3 Theologically, Rome claims to be the true church, deriving her authority in a direct line from Christ and the apostles. The Pope makes his pronouncements based on his apostolic authority. In the Apostolic Constitution of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II stated: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”4
Dr. Fred Moritz is Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. 2 http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2013/05/presentation-ofpontifical-yearbook-2013.html. Accessed 21 June, 2013. 3 http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/u-scatholics-key-data-from-pew-research/. Accessed 21 June, 2013. 4 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm. 1
114
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
It stands to reason that we must be familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church as we minister to people who have embraced that teaching to one degree or another. We willingly assume several responsibilities as we undertake this evaluation. We will study aspects of Catholic theology with which we strenuously disagree. We must be objective, biblical, compassionate, and non-pejorative as we seek to connect with Roman Catholics. Major differences exist between those who embrace the position of sola scriptura and those who do not. We must be objective and true to Scripture, and we must not approach our relationship with Roman Catholics with a bigoted attitude. It is incumbent upon us that we exhibit the spirit of Jude 22, 23. Because a person is Catholic does not mean he or she has accepted all Catholic teaching. We must approach this study with some biblical and historical perspective. God communicated His Word to the world through the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles (Heb 2:1-4). False prophets arose in the Old Testament era, and God gave Israel the means by which they could be identified and rejected (Dt 13:1-5; 18:15-23). False teachers arose in the New Testament, and God gave the early churches warning and means by which they were to be identified and rejected (e.g., 1 Tim 4; 2 Tim 3; 2 Pet 2; Jude). False teachings continued to arise after the age of the apostles and the close of the canon of Scripture. The false teaching of baptismal regeneration appeared in the first hundred years after the apostolic era. The practice of infant baptism was affirmed at the Council of Carthage in 252 AD. We contend that the Roman Church as it exists today is an amalgam of biblical doctrine and false teachings. Agreement Between Roman Catholic Theology and New Testament Faith
At the outset we must understand that certain major doctrines are common among Catholics and Bible-believing Christians. To be completely fair to
Roman Catholic Theology
115
Catholicism, much of the following will be taken from Catholic documents. Historic Orthodox Christianity “Part One – The Profession of Faith” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church develops Catholic doctrine in accordance with the statements of the Apostle’s Creed.5 One author states: The Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed and defended great doctrines of Christian orthodoxy: biblical theism, the trinity, basic teaching about the person and work of Jesus Christ, his virgin conception, the union of his person of the divine and human nature, the objectively sacrificial character of his death, his bodily resurrection, his ascension to the right hand of the Father, and his second coming into this world. 6
The Persons of God and Christ The Catholic Church teaches that there is but one God, who is infinite in knowledge, in power, in goodness, and in every other perfection; who created all things by His omnipotence, and governs them by His Providence. In this one God there are three distinct Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are perfectly equal to each other. We believe that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is perfect God and perfect Man. He is God, for He “is over all things, God blessed forever.” “He is God of the substance of the Father, begotten before time; and He is Man of the substance of His Mother, born in time.” Out of love for us, and in order to rescue us from the miseries entailed upon us by the disobedience of our first
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainfra me=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html. 6 Robin Keeley, ed., Eerdman’s Handbook to Christian Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 433. 5
116
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal parents, the Divine Word descended from heaven, and became Man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost. He was born on Christmas day, in a stable at Bethlehem. After having led a life of obscurity for about thirty years, chiefly at Nazareth, He commenced His public career. He associated with Him a number of men who are named Apostles, whom He instructed in the doctrines of the religion which He established. For three years He went about doing good, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, healing all kinds of diseases, raising the dead to life, and preaching throughout Judea the new Gospel of peace. On Good Friday He was crucified on Mount Calvary, and thus purchased for us redemption by His death. Hence Jesus exclusively bears the titles of Savior and Redeemer, because “there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.”7
The Resurrection of Christ 426 “At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father. . .who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever.” To catechize is “to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God’s eternal design reaching fulfillment in that Person. It is to seek to understand the meaning of Christ’s actions and words and of the signs worked by him.” Catechesis aims at putting “people . . . in communion . . . with Jesus Christ: only he can lead us to the love of the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity.” 639 The mystery of Christ’s resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1980 reprint of 1876 publication), 1, 2. Gibbons was Archbishop of Baltimore. The book went through eighty-three editions through 1917. Note that Gibbons says nothing of the resurrection of Christ in this statement. The next citation from the Catechism explains the Catholic position on Christ’s resurrection. 7
Roman Catholic Theology
117
as the New Testament bears witness. In about A.D. 56 St. Paul could already write to the Corinthians: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. . .” The Apostle speaks here of the living tradition of the Resurrection which he had learned after his conversion at the gates of Damascus.8
The Inspiration of Scripture 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. 106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more. 107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God,
Catechism of the Catholic Church, accessed at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p2.htm. Paragraph numbers are part of the official text and give uniform access to the statements. The Catechism is also available at www.vatican.va. 8
118
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.9
As Bible-believing Baptists, we hold that the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice. Richard V. Clearwaters used to say that there is more disagreement between Bible-believing Baptists and Roman Catholics over practice than there is over faith. We have some profound differences over faith, but we must acknowledge that there are areas of agreement. Distinctive Tenets of Roman Catholic Theology10 The Issue of Authority Roman Catholic theology adds tradition and the authority of the church to the authority of Scripture. The Second Vatican Council stated this without equivocation. We must cite three lengthy passages, for we need to clearly see Rome’s teaching. But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.” This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she
9 Ibid. The very next paragraph is a radical departure from orthodox faith, and we will discuss that issue shortly. Paragraph 120 also affirms 46 books in the Old Testament, thus embracing the Apocrypha as Scripture. 10 Much of this discussion may be found in a simple, readable form in Joe Poweziak, Teachings of the Catholic Church – Questions & Biblical Answers, (Self-published, 2007). Available from Regular Baptist Press. Poweziak is a former Catholic, and this book is a good tool to use in presenting the gospel to Catholics.
Roman Catholic Theology
119
is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2) [emphasis mine].11
The Vatican II statement makes clear this distinction between tradition and Scripture. It continues: Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end . . . Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.12
Vatican II leaves no question about the issue of her authority. Chapter II, “Handing On Divine Revelation,” concludes with this statement: It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.13
Rome’s position is that the Scriptures, tradition, and the teaching authority of the church combine to give God’s revelation to men and provide for man’s salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church further elaborates on these statements. “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation DEI VERBUM Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI November 18, 1965” (Rome: Vatican Web Site, http://www.vatican.va.), Chapter II, 7. 12 Ibid., Chapter II, 9. Emphasis mine. 13 Ibid., Chapter II, 10. 11
120
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 80 Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age.” 81 Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.14
The Catechism also describes the “Magisterium” or the teaching authority of the church. 85 The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 86 Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. 14
Catechism.
Roman Catholic Theology
121
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me” the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. 88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.15
These three sources of authority comprise a “tripod” upon which Rome rests her authority. Note the quotation from Vatican II (n.12). The Doctrine of the Church Rome’s doctrine of the church is central to her claims. The church builds its doctrine of the church around the words “one,” “holy,” “catholic,” and “apostolic.” This arrangement of Catholic ecclesiology may be found in the Catechism, the promulgations of Pope Paul VI in Vatican II, and in many other Catholic documents. We will not take the time to examine each of these points. Rome claims to be the true church by virtue of apostolic succession. The church claims to be the source of salvation. Coming forth from the eternal Father’s love, founded in time by Christ the Redeemer and made one in the Holy Spirit, the Church has a saving and an eschatological purpose which can be fully attained only in the future world.16 771 The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of
Ibid. Emphasis mine. “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World GAUDIUM ET SPES, Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965,” http://www.vatican.va, IV. 40. 15 16
122
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.17
This is the foundation of Rome’s view of the sacraments and of the Virgin Mary. 773 In the Church this communion of men with God, in the “love [that] never ends” is the purpose which governs everything in her that is a sacramental means, tied to this passing world. [The Church’s] structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members. And holiness is measured according to the “great mystery” in which the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom. Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church’s mystery as “the bride without spot or wrinkle.” This is why the “Marian” dimension of the Church precedes the “Petrine.”18
Rome claims to be the “sacrament” by which God’s saving work in Christ is mediated to the world. 774 The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms: mystenum and sacramentum. In later usage the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation, which was indicated by the term mystenum. In this sense, Christ himself is the mystery of salvation: “For there is no other mystery of God, except Christ.” The saving work of his holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church’s sacraments (which the Eastern Churches also call “the holy mysteries”). The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit spreads the grace of Christ the head throughout the Church which is his Body. The Church, then, both contains and communicates the invisible grace
17Catechism. 18
Ibid.
Roman Catholic Theology
123
she signifies. It is in this analogical sense, that the Church is called a “sacrament.”19
This view of the church and salvation rests on the Catholic claim that she is the one true church. 816 The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.”20 845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.
Outside the Church there is no salvation. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated
19 20
Ibid. Ibid.
124
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.21
A Roman Catholic theologian has added clarification to the statements from the Catechism. He observed that “the sacrament is a symbol that points to or makes present Jesus. The real presence of Christ is effected by the elements. The sacraments are to be viewed as the instruments, not the original source of that grace.”22 The Catechism outlines the claim of apostolic succession. The Catholic Church claims that the bishops and the Pope are the successors of Peter and the apostles. 857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways: ― she was and remains built on “the foundation of the Apostles, The witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself”; ― with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, the “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles; ― she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union
Ibid. Personal interview with Michael Tkacik, July 30, 2014. Dr. Tkacik serves as Secretary for Pastoral Ministries for the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida. He holds a Ph.D. from Duquesne University and has taught Catholic theology for twenty years. 21 22
Roman Catholic Theology
125
with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor.”23
The Catechism offers only one biblical “proof” for the apostolic succession of the bishops. It is a reference to Acts 20:28 in n. 374. This is apparently because Paul uses the word “overseer” (episkopos) in this verse. The statement reads: “The bishops ― successors of the apostles” 861 In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry.24
The document goes on to affirm that the papacy is of divine origin. 862 Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Hence the Church teaches that the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.25
This is foundational to receiving the forgiveness of sins in the Roman system. 23 24 25
Catechism. Ibid. Ibid.
126
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 976 The Apostle’s Creed associates faith in the forgiveness of sins not only with faith in the Holy Spirit, but also with faith in the Church and in the communion of saints. It was when he gave the Holy Spirit to his apostles that the risen Christ conferred on them his own divine power to forgive sins: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”26
Rome constitutes herself through the office of the supreme pontiff and the bishops of the church. The Code of Canon Law describes the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Can. 330 Just as by the Lord’s decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are united among themselves.27
The Holy See is a bureaucracy, but Canon Law delegates final, absolute power to the Supreme Pontiff, stating: Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer [sic] the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer [sic] all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care. §2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office. §3. No appeal or recourse
Ibid. “Code of Canon Law, Part II. Section I. Chapter I. Article 1. THE ROMAN PONTIFF AND THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS,” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P15.HTM. 26 27
Roman Catholic Theology
127
is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.28
Catholic Teaching on the Sacraments Rome declares that the church is the mediator of the sacraments and that the church is, in one sense, a sacrament through which the seven sacraments are mediated.29 The basic dictionary definition of “sacrament” is: “in Christianity, a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it.”30 The Catholic Church defines “sacrament” in a specific way: 1076 The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the “dispensation of the mystery” the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, “until he comes.” In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls “the sacramental economy”; this is the communication (or “dispensation”) of the fruits of Christ’s Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church’s “sacramental” liturgy.”31
The function of the sacraments in Rome’s system then is that the benefits of Christ’s suffering be communicated by the church through those sacraments. They are the means by which God’s grace is given to the Church members. 1084 Seated at the right hand of the Father and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the 28 29 30 31
Ibid. Emphasis mine. See paragraph 774 of the Catechism, noted above. Encarta Dictionary. Catechism. Emphasis mine.
128
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.32
The very next paragraph affirms that Christ is present in the liturgy and thus in the sacraments. 1085 In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. 1113 The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. 33
The Catechism is clear in stating that grace and salvation are communicated to those who participate in the sacraments, and that the sacraments are necessary for salvation: 1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power. 1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the 32 33
Ibid. Emphasis mine. Ibid.
Roman Catholic Theology
129
righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them. 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.34
Catholic theologians arrange the sacraments in an order, with the Eucharist at the very heart of the system. The arrangement is: Three sacraments of Christian initiation Sacraments of healing Sacraments at the service of communion and the mission of the faithful “In this organic whole, the Eucharist occupies a unique place as the ‘Sacrament of sacraments’: ‘all the other sacraments are ordered to it as to their end.’ ”35 We will give only a brief description of the Catholic Church’s teaching on each of the sacraments. 1212 The sacraments of Christian initiation ― Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist ― lay the foundations of every Christian life. “The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ 34 35
Ibid. Emphasis mine. Ibid., 1211.
130
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity.”36
The church affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation and that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood.37 The “sacraments of healing” are penance and the anointing of the sick.38 The Catechism speaks of an “interior” penance, and the description of it is akin to the biblical language concerning conversion.39 Penance can also take many other forms in the life of a Catholic. 1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity “which covers a multitude of sins.” 1435 Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the
36 37 38 39
Ibid. Ibid., 1257, 1333. Ibid., 1421. Ibid., 1431.
Roman Catholic Theology
131
sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.40 1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.
What is an indulgence? An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead. Rome’s teaching on Purgatory is part of church teaching on Penance. The punishments of sin 1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.41 40 41
Ibid. Emphasis mine. Ibid. Emphasis mine.
132
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains.42
Concerning the anointing of the sick, the Catechism teaches: 1499 By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them and indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ.43
The sacrament of last rites falls under this heading. 1524 In addition to the Anointing of the Sick, the Church offers those who are about to leave this life the Eucharist as viaticum. Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of “passing over” to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” The sacrament of Christ once dead and now risen, the Eucharist is here the sacrament of passing over from death to life, from this world to the Father. 1525 Thus, just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist form a unity called “the sacraments of Christian initiation,” so too it can be said that Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life “the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland” or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage. 44
42 43 44
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.
Roman Catholic Theology
133
The Catechism ends its discussion of the sacraments with a discussion of holy orders and matrimony. 1533 Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist are sacraments of Christian initiation. They ground the common vocation of all Christ’s disciples, a vocation to holiness and to the mission of evangelizing the world. They confer the graces needed for the life according to the Spirit during this life as pilgrims on the march towards the homeland. 1534 Two other sacraments, Holy Orders and Matrimony, are directed towards the salvation of others; if they contribute as well to personal salvation, it is through service to others that they do so. They confer a particular mission in the Church and serve to build up the People of God. 1535 Through these sacraments those already consecrated by Baptism and Confirmation for the common priesthood of all the faithful can receive particular consecrations. Those who receive the sacrament of Holy Orders are consecrated in Christ’s name “to feed the Church by the word and grace of God.” On their part, “Christian spouses are fortified and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of their state by a special sacrament.”45
Catholic Teaching on Mary The Catholic Church teaches the immaculate conception of Mary – the tenet that she was born without sin. “It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.”46 The Catechism teaches that Mary was redeemed at birth and free of sin throughout her life. Ibid. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church LUMEN GENTIUM Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI November 21, 1964,” (Rome: Vatican Web Site, http://www.vatican.va.), VIII. 56. 45 46
134
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” 492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love.” 493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.” By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.47
Rome also teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.” 500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary [emphasis mine]. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, 47
Catechism.
Roman Catholic Theology
135
whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. 501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: “The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she cooperates with a mother’s love.”48
Rome teaches the “Assumption of the Blessed Virgin” – that Mary was taken up to heaven without seeing death. She participated, in a subordinate way, in our salvation. 966 Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: “In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death” . . . she is our Mother in the order of grace.49
The term “Coredemptrix” has been used in describing Mary’s role. Apparently this is not an officially sanctioned term in Catholic theology, but it does represent the concept. Catholic theologians further explain what they mean by Mary’s role in salvation.
Ibid. “Catechism,” http://www.vatican.va/archive/eng0015/__ p2c.htm. Emphasis mine. 48 49
136
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal That is all that statement about Mary is saying. Mary had a role, a contribution in filling what was lacking in us, the Church. It’s a very biblical statement. Jesus Christ as true God and true man redeems the human family, while Mary as Coredemptrix participates with the Redeemer in his one perfect Sacrifice in a completely subordinate and dependent way. The key word here is “participation” in that which is exclusively true of Jesus Christ. The title “Coredemptrix” never puts Mary on a level of equality with our Lord; rather, it refers to Mary’s unique and intimate participation with her divine Son in the work of redemption. “Coredemptrix” is a Latin word; the prefix “co” in the title, “Coredemptrix,” derives from the Latin word “cum,” which means “with,” not “equal to.” Mary’s sufferings are efficacious towards the redemption of man because they are wholly rooted in the redemptive graces of Christ and are perfectly united to His redeeming will. Similarly, as Mediatrix, the Mother of Jesus does not “rival” Christ’s mediation but rather participates in the one mediation of Jesus Christ. Imagine water from a reservoir reaching the people through a system of aqueducts or channels. By analogy, Jesus is the infinite “reservoir” of all grace, which is distributed to us through Mary . . . as she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus, the one mediator, does not exclude secondary, subordinate mediators.50
It is easy to see how the term “Coredemptrix” comes into usage in Catholic theology. The Catechism further states: 968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html Newsweek ran an article in the August 25, 1997, issue about a new movement within the Catholic Church. Millions of Catholics signed and submitted a petition to Pope John Paul II in an effort to name Mary, the Mother of our Lord, as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for all Christians. 50
Roman Catholic Theology
137
to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace” 969 This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.51
Mary is worthy of special devotion from the faithful. 971 “All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of “Mother of God,” to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.” The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.52
Prayer to the Saints Rome also teaches that Catholics should pray to the saints. 2683 The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom, especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, 51 52
Catechism. Ibid.
138
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were “put in charge of many things.” Their intercession is their most exalted service to God’s plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world.53
Veneration of Images Rome also teaches the veneration of images. The church strives to distinguish between worship that is due God alone and a secondary adoration of the images. The Catechism states: 2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.54
The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the church’s teaching on this subject: As an example of contemporary Catholic teaching on this subject one could hardly quote anything better expressed than the “Catechism of Christian Doctrine” used in England by command of the Catholic bishops. In four points, this book sums up the whole Catholic position exactly: It is forbidden to give divine honor or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone. 53 54
Ibid. Ibid.
Roman Catholic Theology
139
We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honor or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God. We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honor, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them. We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us.55
Justification and Merit It is important to understand the Catholic teaching on Justification. We have seen that the Catholic Church claims to be the mediator of salvation to mankind. We have also seen the church teaching that the sacraments convey salvation. These concepts combine in the Catholic statements on Justification. People are justified by faith in Christ and baptism. 1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism.56 1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification. 57 2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.58
55 The Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/07664a.htm. 56 Catechism. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.
140
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
This teaching on Justification is a long-standing position of the church. “Perhaps the clearest and most systematic exposition of the Catholic theology of justification is that provided by the council of Trent in its sixth session and approved on January 13, 1547.”59 The idea of merit figures into Catholic reasoning at this point. 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.60
Conclusion We must remember that there are areas of agreement between Catholic doctrine and orthodox, traditional Christianity. It is also clear that Rome has added much to those biblical teachings. We view those additions as errors when they are judged by the standard of revealed Scripture. We evaluate Catholic doctrine by the same standard as we would evaluate any other group’s doctrine – the standard of the authoritative Word of God. It seems to this writer that Roman Catholic theology is built on two fundamental errors. The first error is adding the authorities of tradition and the teaching authority of the 59 Gerald O’Collins, S.J., and Oliver P. Rafferty, S.J. “Roman Catholic View” in James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., Justification, Five Views (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 265. 60 Ibid. Emphasis mine.
Roman Catholic Theology
141
church to the authority of Scripture. The second error is the building of the church’s authority on the biblically unsustainable foundation of apostolic succession. Our fundamental disagreement with Rome is over the issue of authority. Is the Word of God alone the authority, or is Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium the standard? Other errors grow out of these two. Among them are the Roman Catholic views of the church as a sacrament, sacraments as means of grace, baptismal regeneration, infused justification rather than forensic justification, and merit as affecting salvation. By your life and testimony, earn the right to witness to Catholic friends. Ask about the Catholic’s assurance of salvation. A question to ask many unsaved friends of different faiths is: “Do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?” As in all witnessing, depend on the Holy Spirit to do His work of conviction (Jn 16:7-11).
142
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
MBTJ 4/2: 169-185
THE WIZARDRY OF OSS: LIFE IN THE LAND OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROMISE Jonathan Rehfeldt1 Though Biblical Christianity has not been without its able defenders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, its influence has seemed to decline in the West. This is largely because of negative portrayals through the secular media, bombastic “fundamentalist” leaders, and confusion over the relationship between Christianity and culture. The recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye illustrates the popular secular mood toward fundamentalist Christianity. In a recent interview with Skeptical Inquirer, Bill Nye said, [By agreeing to the debate,] I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind – I do not feel I’m exaggerating when I express it this strongly.2 The most obvious disagreement these men have with each other is over human origins; whether man evolved through chance processes over millions of years, or whether man was created by God’s direct act as described in Genesis. Nye reflects, 1 Mr. Rehfeldt is a missionary to Uruguay and a former faculty member at Maranatha Baptist University. 2 Bill Nye, “Bill Nye’s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate” Skeptical Inquirer 38:3 (May/June 2014), 15.
144
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal After the debate, my agent and I were driven back to our hotel. We were, by agreement, accompanied by two of Ham’s security people. They were absolutely grim. I admit it made me feel good. They had the countenance of a team that had been beaten – beaten badly in their own stadium. Incidentally, if the situation were reversed, I am pretty sure they are trained to feel bad about feeling good. They would manage to feel bad either way, which is consistent with Mr. Ham’s insistence on The Fall, when humankind took its first turn for the worse. And by his reckoning, we’ve been plummeting ever since.”3
Nye’s voice represents a chorus of secular scientists and innovators who believe that fundamentalist Christianity, with its commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible, should not be a valid paradigm for intelligence in the twenty-first century.4 Though Nye’s claim that fundamentalist Christianity is “bad” for science education was countered by Ham’s constant reference to Christian innovators, the idea that Christianity and science are inimical to each other pervades our culture. As scientific innovation assuages our desires for abundance and better health, connectivity, self-expression, research, and entertainment, we are confronted by those who believe the gospel is quickly becoming outdated by scientific and technological advances.
Ibid., 17. Many of these scientists are disciples of Carl Sagan, who believed in the transcendence of the mysterious forces of nature that operate through natural selection. Neil Degrasse Tyson is the new host of Fox’s Cosmos, first written and presented by Sagan. His recent interview with Huffington Post is entitled, “Neil Degrasse Tyson: Enlightened People Don’t Use the Bible as a Textbook.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/neil-degrassetyson-bible_n_4940980.html. 3 4
Wizardry of OSS
145
Optimistic Secular Science Those who share in this belief are primarily secular; that is, they believe in the inherent goodness and trustworthiness of human judgment and endeavor, specifically in popular applications of the scientific method. They also tend to be materialistic, believing that all phenomena, including consciousness, are the strict result of material interactions.5 Finally, they are Darwinian evolutionists, viewing secular science as the necessary means of achieving the next great leap in evolutionary advance. This group largely agrees that we are on the cusp of breath-taking advances in science and technology (as do other groups). They often quote Moore’s Law which describes how the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years. They also point out that as technology becomes more integrated with itself and with humans it is also becoming faster, smaller, and cheaper. They might add that our understanding of the universe is growing more sophisticated, as can be seen with breakthroughs like the genome project and the discovery of the Higgs-boson particle. Those who consider the future of secular science generally fall into one of three categories, with some overlap between the categories.6 First, there are those who are generally pessimistic. They frequently mention the second law of thermodynamics and may point to moral conditions to 5 Ironically, secularists often use spiritual sounding terms like “transcendence,” “spirit,” and “beauty” to describe humans and the universe. Materialism is the presupposition of behaviorism, which has been abandoned by most psychologists because there is no good reason to believe that mind amounts to bodily motions. This is a problem for those secular innovators who hope to create a human mind or something that closely resembles it. 6 These were adapted from J. Storris Hall, Beyond AI: Creating the Conscience of the Machine (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007), 357-358.
146
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
illustrate the inevitable decay and ultimate failure of the earth and the universe. Second, there are those who think along linear trend lines from past decades to predict what may lie ahead. This model is reliable to a degree in the shortterm, but in the long-term as applied a century ago did not well predict the existence of satellite technology and computers. This group generally seems to be satisfied with the status quo in scientific research and prediction. The third group is in or near the hemisphere of “the singularitarian.” Time described this group by saying that “they think in terms of deep time, they believe in the power of technology to shape history, they have little interest in the conventional wisdom about anything, and they cannot believe you’re walking around living your life and watching TV as if the artificialintelligence revolution were not about to erupt and change absolutely everything.”7 The term “singularity” was first used by mathematician Jon von Neumann around 1958 to describe a time when science and technology would progress to the point that human affairs, as we know them, could not continue. In 1993, computer scientist and science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge spoke to a VISION-21 symposium (sponsored in part by NASA) about the probability and nature of such a coming singularity. With a firm belief in evolutionary progress and the necessary emergence of ever-greater intelligence, Vinge predicted the coming of an intelligent machine that would not be subject to humans any more than humans are subject to rabbits, robins, or chimpanzees. While he believes that artificial intelligence (AI) may produce the singularity, he also suggests the possibility that it will emerge through intelligence amplification (IA). The main difference between these two is that AI, in its most mature form, would be more independent of humans while IA is more inter-dependent with them. Vinge believes that IA may be the path to the Lev Grossman. “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.” Time (online). Thursday, February 10, 2011. Accessed May 28, 2014: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171, 2048299-1,00.html. 7
Wizardry of OSS
147
singularity mainly because of the mystery of human consciousness. He observes that “building up within ourselves ought to be easier than figuring out first what we really are and then building machines that are all of that.” The benefit of this approach, says Vinge, is that it allows us to participate “in a kind of transcendence.” The “transcendence” that he believes helped produce human consciousness is an important theme which will be explored later in this paper. Today the singularity finds its most popular and utopian expression in Google’s chief engineer, Ray Kurzweil. Though Kurzweil has not been without sharp criticism,8 he has a sizeable following among computer scientists, inventors, CEOs, and futurists. He is a favorite at TED conferences and is known for radically advancing the fields of speech, text, and audio technology. He is also known for his belief that he will soon resurrect his father using relics from his father’s past, and that he will preserve his own life indefinitely with the help of computer technology.9 His TED biography reads, “He’s revered for his dizzying – yet convincing – writing on the advance of technology, the limits of biology and the future of the human species.”10 Impressed by his technological wizardry, Google hired Kurzweil in 2013 to help them advance toward their goal of changing the world and For instance, see Paul Root Wolpe’s “Kurzweil’s Singularity Prediction is Wrong” on bigthink.com: http://bigthink.com/users/ paulrootwolpe. Harsher than Wolpe is author Doug Hofstadter who said in an interview that “if you read Ray Kurzweil’s books…what I find is that it’s a very bizarre mixture of ideas that are solid and good with ideas that are crazy. It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can’t possibly figure out what’s good or bad.” 9 Ashlee Vance, “Merely Human? That’s So Yesterday,” The New York Times (June 12, 2010), accessed May 29, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/business/13sing.html?pa gewanted=all&_r=0. 10 Personal profile for Ray Kurzweil on TED.com: http://www. ted.com/speakers/ray_kurzweil. 8
148
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
producing various forms of artificial intelligence. He believes the singularity is not more than a few decades away. He is the co-founder and chancellor of Singularity University in Moffett Field, California. The reach of optimistic secular science (OSS) is not limited to technology specialists. In 2004, as President Obama was running for the U.S. Senate, Google CEO Larry Page gave him a tour which included a look at a flat-panel display which showed Google search activity in real time. The president revealed his belief in progress through technology and evolution as he reflected on this experience in his book The Audacity of Hope. The image was mesmerizing, more organic than mechanical, as if I were glimpsing the early stages of some accelerating evolutionary process, in which all the boundaries between men – nationality, race, wealth – were rendered invisible and irrelevant, so that the physicist in Cambridge, the bond trader in Tokyo, the student in a remote Indian village, and the manager of a Mexican department store were drawn into a single, thrumming conversation, time and space giving way to a world spun entirely of light.11 By 2007, Obama had an impressive Google following apparently because of their mutual approach to problem solving using the internet. Eventually, a few employees even left Google to work for the White House.12 The impact of OSS is wide-spread. As I have stated, the most optimistic, if at times strange, expression of OSS is the singularitarian. Jaron Lanier points out that the intentions of the singularitarians are good. They are simply 11 Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (New York: Crown, 2006), 139. 12 Steven Levy, chapter entitled “I was probably the only computer science degree in the whole campaign,” in In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2011).
Wizardry of OSS
149
following a path that was blazed in earlier times by wellmeaning Freudians and Marxists. . . . Movements associated with Freud and Marx both claimed foundations in rationality and the scientific understanding of the world. Both perceived themselves to be at war with the weird, manipulative fantasies of religions. And yet both invented their own fantasies that were just as weird. 13
One of the more odd manifestations of this movement is their commitment to releasing the next stage of evolution through the simulation and reproduction of man’s mind and the creation of artificial intelligence. Other groups, wittingly or unwittingly, are contributing to their efforts. Man, The Final Frontier One singularitarian who is not as utopian as Kurzweil but is just as committed to secular evolutionary ideals is James Barat. Prophesying the rise of super-intelligent machines, he betrays his inability to explain human consciousness by asking, “What’s so remarkable about the brain’s processes, even consciousness, anyway? Just because we don’t understand consciousness now doesn’t mean we never will. It’s not magic.”14 Barat and others seem to realize that the construction of a truly intelligent machine will require unlocking the mystery of human consciousness, which from a materialistic point of view, simply amounts to mapping and simulating the physical processes of the human brain. Corporate giants like Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Facebook are industry leaders in AI research and development, while companies like Apple and Amazon only more recently have demonstrated interest in AI. Of them all, Google seems to be the most interested in developing something that resembles a human. Their recent acquisition 13 Jaron Lanier, You are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010), 18. 14 James Barrat, Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2013), 46.
150
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
of Kurzweil, the founders” fascination with AI, the activities of their semi-secret “Google X” lab, along with their 2013 absorption of eight major robotics companies shows they have more than a simple “search” on their minds. Fascination with AI is not limited to the United States. The European Union has organized and is funding The Human Brain Project, which seeks to gain “profound insight into what makes us human.” This project promises to “develop six ICT platforms, dedicated respectively to Neuroinformatics, Brain Simulation, High Performance Computing, Medical Informatics, Neuromorphic Computing and Neurorobotics.”15 MIT Technology Review recognized the Brain Project as one of the top-ten breakthroughs that will have the greatest impact on innovation in the years to come.16 There are varying opinions on where all of this brain research will lead. Many think that advanced brain research, coupled with the robotics explosion,17 may de-humanize us by taking our jobs, stripping us of personal relationships, and minimizing traditional categories of intelligence like
See www.humanbrainproject.eu. ”10 Breakthrough Technologies 2014,” MIT Technology Review. Online version available at http://www.technologyreview. com/lists/technologies/2014/. Also on the list is genome editing, agile robots, microscale 3-D printing, and neuromorphic chips. 17 See Alan Brown, “Robot Population Explosion,” Mechanical Engineering (February 2009), in The Reference Shelf: Robotics, 82:1, ed. Kenneth Partridge (New York: H.W. Wilson, 2010), 20-21. Brown describes how machines that vacuum, scrub kitchen floors, and mow the lawn accounted for $1.3 billion in sales in 2007. Entertainment robots, like Sony’s Aibo robotic dog ($2,500), reached $2 billion in sales in the same year. Robots designed for professional use are even more widespread, not to mention the recent explosion in the development and proliferation of drones. While the United States has led in this explosion, well-known foreign companies like Japan’s Honda, Kawada, and Toyota have made major investments in robotics, showing a marked interest in sophisticated humanoids. 15 16
Wizardry of OSS
151
problem solving and empathy. Margaret Boden believes AI actually has the ability to “re-humanize” us, by freeing us to fill more service oriented jobs like the caring professions, education, craft, sport, and entertainment on a part-time basis. John Weaver thus believes that “by treating robots like humans, humans can become more human.”18 Two MIT professors have written Amazon’s best-selling book in the category “The Future of Computing.” Their work is perhaps the most even-handed treatment of our present technological situation.19 One of the authors, Erik Brynjolfsson, spoke at a TED conference in February, 2013. He believes that AI, or “the new machine age,” will revolutionize our lives in ways similar to that of engines, electricity, and the computer. The coming revolution will be more sweeping, however, because AI is digital, exponential, and combinatorial. The solution for humans is not to race against the machine20 but to race with it, since humans working with computers are more powerful than any one human or computer by itself.21 This new age is largely based on research that suggests transistor-based computing is about to be replaced by something more dynamic, exponential and combinatorial. 18 John Weaver, Robots Are People Too: How Siri, Google Car, and Artificial Intelligence Will Force Us to Change Our Laws (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2014), 186. Weaver is quoting Boden at this point. 19 Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies (New York: W.W. Norton, 2014). This work builds on their earlier book Race Against the Machine (published by the authors, 2011). 20 Interestingly, the new machine age has caused what Brynjolfsson calls “the great decoupling” in economics. This is when productivity is decoupled from employment and when wealth is decoupled from work. Since machines tend to displace laborers, people grow disillusioned and want to race “against the machine.” 21 See his TED talk, “The Key to Growth? Race with the Machines,” on TED.com.
152
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
IBM laboratories concur that we have reached the limits of our transistor-based computing power. In order to understand (or “compute”) anything from humans to cities to global financial industries, John Kelly believes that “only through fundamental breakthroughs in physics will we be able to deal with so much complexity and uncertainty on a planetary scale.”22 The most promising path to such computing begins with quantum computing machines, which IBM believes will be produced in the next five to ten years. These machines will be able to crunch mind-boggling numbers at mind-boggling speeds, which may lead to breakthroughs in physics that make technology faster, more powerful, more pervasive, and seemingly more “aware.”23 Quantum computing would be the beginning, not the end, of such “fundamental breakthroughs in physics.” Perhaps with Barat’s attitude that human consciousness is not “magic,” many secular scientists propose that all of life, including human consciousness, can be obtained and explained mathematically. If this were so, quantum computing is mankind’s next best bet at cracking the code of human consciousness. Tom Siegfried’s biography of John Nash, the formulator of Game Theory, illustrates the attempt to understand consciousness using math. This attempt is essentially materialistic with the presupposition of Darwinian evolution. Siegfried believes the promise of Game Theory lies in its ability to unify physics and biology, and perhaps even contribute to a theory of everything (TOE). He states, As I described in my book Strange Matters, there something strange about the human brain’s ability produce math that captures deep and true aspects reality, enabling scientists to predict the existence
is to of of
22 John Kelly and Steve Hamm, Smart Machines: IBM’s Watson and the Era of Cognitive Computing (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 107. Kelly is the senior vice president and director of IBM Research. 23 Ibid., 107-108. See also “IBM Announces New Advances in Quantum Computing” on youtube.
Wizardry of OSS
153
exotic things like antimatter and black holes before any observer finds them. Part of the solution to this mystery, I suggested, is the fact that the brain evolved in the physical world, its development constrained by the laws of physics as much as by the laws of biology. . . . It’s clear now that game theory’s math describes the capability of the universe to produce brains that can invent math. And math in turn, as Asimov envisioned, can be used to describe the behavior guided by those brains – including the social collective behavior that creates civilization, culture, economics, and politics.24
As neuroscientists monitor “game players” in any number of situations, Siegfried projects that “just maybe we’ll see how Nash’s math can broker the merger of economics and psychology, anthropology and sociology, with biology and physics – producing a grand synthesis of the sciences of life in general, human behavior in particular, and maybe even, someday, the entire physical world.”25 Spurred by the computer’s pervasiveness and influence, the world’s leading money-makers and engineers are pouring their efforts into the production of artificial intelligence. AI, to be fully mature, requires a better understanding of human consciousness so that humans can replicate it and use if for their own ends. The vast majority of Christians agree that science and technology are valuable disciplines which help us appreciate God and the universe. Intelligence and inventiveness are glorious expressions of being made in God’s image. It is the widespread influence of OSS, not the concept of science and technology itself, that must be questioned. The fact that intelligence is being based on the degree to which one prescribes to OSS is alarming. Popular and otherwise harmless teachers as well-liked as Bill Nye have suggested that the Christian worldview is simply “bad for science.” 24 Tom Siegfried, A Beautiful Math (Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 2006), 8. 25 Ibid.
154
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Others, like Richard Clark, are more subtle. His sciencefiction book Breakpoint follows Kurzweil’s prediction of the Singularity and envisions a world in which “terrorists” try to halt the advance of technology. He says that “there are enormous social and political issues that will arise. There are vast groups of people in society who believe the earth is 5,000 years old. If they want to slow down progress and prevent the world from changing around them and they engaged in political action or violence, then there will have to be some sort of decision point.” Though Clark’s reference to violence may be overlooked by biblically informed Christians (John 18:36), his reference to “political action” demonstrates his belief that Christianity has no place in a society controlled by OSS. A New Natural Law Regina Dugan was the first female director of the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a research arm of the Pentagon. Using technology like hummingbird drones, she told a TED audience that “our singular mission is the prevention and creation of strategic surprise.” When asked if she is concerned about the “Pandora’s box” of the irresponsible use of technology, she replied that her job necessarily makes people excited and uncomfortable at the same time. “Our responsibility is to push that edge, and we have to be mindful and responsible about how that technology is developed and used. But we can’t simply close our eyes and pretend that it isn’t advancing. It’s advancing.” Ultimately, she admits that she cannot answer questions about the possibly negative implications of advancing technology.26 In a similar setting to that in which Dugan was asked about the implications of advancing technology, Charlie Rose asked Larry Page what quality of mind it is that serves him See her TED talk “From mach-20 glider to hummingbird drone” on TED.com. Her comments illustrate the mood of advancing technology; I do not know whether or not she submits to OSS. 26
Wizardry of OSS
155
best in thinking about the future. Page replied, “We’ve had a rapid turnover of companies, and I’ve asked, “What did they fundamentally do wrong?” Usually, they just missed the future. So I just try to focus on that and say “What is that future going to be, and how do we create it?” ” The future, as it is envisioned by leading technology developers, seems to demand the constant emergence of more powerful and intelligent forms of technology. The vision for this technology seems only to be limited by the imaginations of those who are creating it (and, to a degree, by the demand of those who may use it). Suggesting that technology itself has become a new religion, Kevin Kelly of Wired noted, Because values and meaning are scarce today, technology will make our decisions for us. We’ll listen to technology because our modern ears listen to little else. In the absence of other firm beliefs, we’ll let technology steer. No other force is as powerful in shaping our destiny. By imagining what technology wants, we can imagine the course of our culture.27 The explanation for why technology must advance when its future seems so unclear is a mystery to most secular scientists. Sometimes it is explained as a transcendent evolutionary drive or as our ultimate solution to the problem of evil. Still, when the implications of advancing technology like AI yield unclear and sometimes troubling dilemmas, few seem to question the continued, ambitious pursuit of it. As Einstein observed, “It is really a puzzle what draws one to take one’s work so devilishly seriously. For whom? For oneself? – one soon leaves, after all. For posterity? No, it remains a puzzle.”28
27 Quoted in Craig Detweiler, iGods: How Technology Shapes Our Spiritual and Social Lives (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2013), 28.
156
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Einstein was talking about his struggle to “unearth deep secrets,” probably a reference to his search for a unified field theory of the universe. While he did not believe in the existence of a personal God, he strangely acknowledged that certain religious men made major contributions to humanity. In 1927 he wrote, “What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive minds.”29 Yet Einstein himself saw that OSS, to which he pledged his ultimate allegiance, provided no epistemological ground for taking religion seriously. A letter he wrote to his friend Otto Juluisburger in 1947 illustrates this. It is about Hitler’s responsibility in World War II. I think we have to safeguard ourselves against people who are a menace to others, quite apart from what may have motivated their deeds. What need is there for a criterion of responsibility? I believe that the horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct of people today stems primarily from the mechanization and dehumanization of our lives – a disastrous byproduct of the development of the scientific and technical mentality. Nostra culpa! I don’t see any way to tackle this disastrous short-coming. Man grows cold faster than the planet he inhabits. 30
This “disastrous shortcoming” is not recognized by all secular scientists and technologists. Steven Weinberg is able to say, “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be
Barry Parker, Einstein’s Dream: The Search for a Unified Theory of the Universe (New York: Plenum, 1986), 46. 29 Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Albert Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979), 70-71. 30 Ibid., 80-81. 28
Wizardry of OSS
157
religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.”31 Weinberg believes that OSS is more objective than is religion and that evolution has made us smarter than our religious ancestors. Soft secular scientists like Einstein and hard ones like Weinberg seem to assume that OSS gives us an everincreasingly true picture of the world, however cold it may be in Einstein’s conception. Yet OSS itself cannot define what is comprehensive and true. J.P. Moreland has summarized Larry Laudan’s remarks in this regard. Scientific progress does not consist in the progressive convergence on a truer and truer picture of the world. Rather, it is a measure of the relative number, rate, and importance of the various problems science solves, where science may be understood as an entire discipline or as some specific set of theories within a given area of science.32
He continues, Thus, the history of science is one of periods of normal science followed by crisis, which gives way to a revolution in which a paradigm shift occurs and ushers in a new period of normal science. The history of science, therefore, is not what the realist claims it to be – a history of new theories (usually) refining old ones, preserving them as limiting cases, and hence advancing cumulatively toward truer and truer pictures of the world. Rather, it is a history of jerky replacements. Old theories are abandoned, new ones are embraced. . . . [T]he history of science warns us against believing that science, present
31 Steven Weinberg, “A Designer Universe?” New York Review of Books (21 October 1999), 48. 32 Summary of Laudan’s Progress and Its Problems in J.P. Moreland, Christianity and the Nature of Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 185.
158
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal theories included, enterprise.33
is
a
rational,
truth-obtaining
OSS coupled with advancing technology suggests that man will become more intelligent and “true” as he yields to the transcendent forces of the incoming technological future. Perhaps as Frederick Taylor observed more than onehundred years ago, we live in an age when human subjectivity must necessarily be displaced by scientific methodology, for only then can the most competent men emerge as leaders for our society.34 Because OSS has no room for the super-natural workings of God in history, neither can it be encumbered by traditional moral values when such values are based on the miraculous working of God in history. The definition of the betterment of man is thus controlled by the acknowledged leaders in the scientific and technological communities. As early as 1943, C.S. Lewis noted the outcome of a secular, evolutionary approach to man’s mind. Of course, while we did not know how minds were made, we accepted this mental furniture as a datum, even as master. But many things in nature which were once our masters have become our servants. Why not this? Why must our conquest of nature stop short, in stupid reverence, before this final and toughest bit of “nature” which as hitherto been called the conscience of man? You threaten us with some obscure disaster if we step outside it: but we have been threatened in that way by obscurantists at every step in our advance, and each time the threat has proved false. You say we shall have no values at all if we step outside the Tao [loosely used by Lewis to describe general revelation or conscience]. Very well: we shall probably find that we can get on quite comfortably without them. Let us regard all ideas of what we ought to do simply as an interesting psychological survival: let us step right out of all that and start doing Ibid., 198. Frederick Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1911), 7. 33 34
Wizardry of OSS
159
what we like. Let us decide for ourselves what man is to be and make him into that: not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such. Having mastered our environment let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny.35
Lewis further prophesied that “whatever tao there is will be the product, not the motive, of education.”36 As the wizards of OSS pursue their final frontier without any clear historical rationale (they cannot explain human consciousness), direction or controls, we are left to determine whether or not man’s conquest of nature, in the moment of its consummation, would be “nature’s conquest of man.”37 Battle on the Edge of the Universe Western culture has adopted the overwhelming presupposition of Darwinian evolution that demands the emergence of a more intelligent and “true” form of society via OSS. This adoption seems to be the main source of epistemological hostility toward the gospel today. As Carl Henry noted, “Man alone remains, self-sufficient and autonomous, to rescue the cosmos from absurdity and worthlessness.”38 The Christian Scriptures plainly declare that conditions will worsen before the close of history (2 Tim. 3:13). Instead of “throwing rocks” at general and otherwise positive concepts like science and technology, the Christian must understand and address the philosophical underpinnings of OSS using God’s Word.
35
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Kindle edition, location
431. Ibid., location 510. Ibid., location 566. 38 Carl Henry, “Secular Man and Ultimate Concerns,” in God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1976): 139. 36 37
160
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Messianic Themes within OSS
Christians must maintain an interesting tension between current events and end-times prophecy. One the one hand, we see extreme interpretations which fail because they claim to know the more than approximate time of Christ’s return.39 On the other hand, those who refuse to consider the significance of their time in history, or perhaps feel jaded because of the abundance of extreme interpretations made in their own lifetimes, fail to heed Christ’s admonition to “watch” for the end (Matt 24:42-44). Christ, who Himself is “the Truth” (John 14:6), foretold the coming of imposters and the eventual emergence of the darkest powers in the universe (Matt 24:11; John 5:43, cf. 2 Thes 2:3-4). It seems strange that although few secular scientists and technologists can articulate where their innovation ultimately comes from or where it will lead, still many of them carry an epistemological hostility toward the gospel. With the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species in 1859 and the popularization of evolution, the idea that knowledge should not be found in the past but in the present and that knowledge is constantly improving has been reinforced.40 Some of the brightest hopes first offered in the gospel of Jesus Christ have seemed to find an awkward re-birth within OSS. These hopes include God-like understanding and dominion in the universe, a perfected centralization of power on earth and eternal life with eternal bliss. God-like understanding and dominion in the universe In 1988, Freeman Dyson declared in his book Infinite in All Directions that “God is what mind becomes when it has 39 For example, Edgar Whisenant, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988 (Np: World Bible Society, 1988). 40 For the story of Rene Descarte and Pierre Gassendi who challenged long-standing assumptions about human knowledge, see Glenn Sunshine, Why You Think the Way You Do (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 115-134.
Wizardry of OSS
161
passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.”41 Dyson’s vision of transcendent order approximates Einstein’s belief in the “sheer being” behind the universe that could be approached and manipulated through science. Einstein wrote to a Chicago Rabbi in December 1939, The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound inter-relations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image ― a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being.42
The surge of energy with which many secular scientists pursue the imagined incoming future stems from a belief that humans are the closest thing to “God” that the universe has yet produced. We are complete with consciousness and interpersonal interests and are goal-oriented (i.e., we have a sense of dominion), all of which must be reduced to the “code” inherent in sheer being from which we emerged. But this begs the question: why do we interpret the code with such sensations and drive while the sheer being (or what is behind it) does not? Einstein’s “disastrous shortcoming” betrays his effort to find a theory that truly explains everything. In his attempt to reduce God to sheer being, he is actually recasting God in the image of OSS, which is essentially materialistic (Rom. 1:18-25). The best explanation for human consciousness, interpersonal interests, and man’s sense of dominion is that we were made in the image of the Biblical God (Gen. 1:2628), who is fully revealed in Jesus Christ (John 1:14-18). The
41 Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions (New York: Perennial, HarperCollins, 1989), 119. 42 Dukas and Hoffman, Albert Einstein, 70-71.
162
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
nature of Christ’s teachings and miracles demonstrates that “He is the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9) and that a person can only be made complete and ready for the ultimate future if the Spirit of God lives in him (2:10-15). Though man’s rebellion has skewed the image of God in man (Gen. 3), it can be progressively restored when a person believes in Jesus Christ as Lord for salvation, sanctification (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10), and glorification (Rom. 8:30), which is the ultimate future. A perfected centralization of power on earth Any student of world history and current events can see a movement toward a global centralization of power. This has happened mainly through a kingdom’s impulse to dominate (cf. James 4:1-3) and is happening today through the spread of secular humanist ideals, economic depression, and technology.43 Concerning those disciplines which touch OSS, it is happening in scientific theory (Game Theory and other attempted TOEs), technological theory (Singularity University and the Human Brain Project), and political theory. The “thrumming conversation” of nations envisioned by Obama has been anticipated by technologists who are working on a theory of cities. Such a theory would provide a thorough, language-based understanding of what a city is, how it functions, and how its problems may be addressed.44 Unless scientists can crack the code of human consciousness and bridge the gap between OSS and man’s innate sense of morality, as Lewis pointed out, some human whose power is only limited by his imagination will necessarily have to take the helm of the new world order. Should scientists be able to crack the code, mankind may be
43 See a good discussion of this in Paul Chappell, Understanding the Times (Lancaster, CA: Striving Together Publications, 2011), 103-125. 44 Kelly, Smart Machines, 119.
Wizardry of OSS
163
able to create their leader;45 otherwise, they will have to recognize him.46 The hope for a perfected centralization of power on earth ultimately will be realized, but not in the way that OSS imagines. The prophet Isaiah declared that God’s Messiah would establish an eternal kingdom of peace and prosperity. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this (Isa 9:6-7).
Isaiah also predicted that God’s Messiah would endure great suffering and die, but that he would conquer sin and death itself to establish his kingdom. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; He has put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord will prosper in his hand. He shall see the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with 45 Genome editing already promises young secular parents a designer child; such technology could feasibly be used to try and produce a “perfect” world leader. 46 A significant amount of development would have to take place for OSS to establish a “scientifically” objective religious or moral standard. Trust in the purely secular would have to give way to a unified socio-political religious system. Indeed, this is already happening in some sectors as “techno-junkies” are fascinated with psychedelic drugs and pantheistic conceptions of God. Most theologians agree that the prostitute in Revelation 17 is an amalgamation of the world’s religions.
164
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal the strong, because he has poured out his soul unto death (Isa 53:10-12c).
The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ confirm both the Fall of Man (Gen 3; cf. Rom 5) and the ultimate future as described in the Bible.47 The Messianic era will be preceded by the visible emergence of the darkest powers of the universe (2 Thes 2:310; Rev 13). These powers are essentially lawless and will deceive humans through godless wonders. OSS is one epistemological construct that Satan may use to foment this emergence, characterized as it is by a rejection of divine law, materialism (which is essentially idolatry; cf. Rev 9:20-21), and a dazzling promise to eradicate trouble from the human condition via technology (cf. 1 Thes 5:3).48 Eternal Life with Eternal Bliss Kurzweil and other Singularitarians have expressed a hope to achieve the eternal (or at least very long) preservation of their own lives via science and technology. Barat notes simply, “By 2045, human and machine intelligence will have increased a billion-fold, and will develop technologies to defeat our human frailties, such as fatigue, illness, and death.”49 What would life without human frailties look like? In his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, Kurzweil carries on a hypothetical conversation with a spiritual machine in 2099, humorous because of the interplay between its supposed future existence and its actual present existence only in Kurzweil’s mind. Following “heartfelt” goodbyes and a lewd invitation from the machine to Kurzweil, the machine finally accedes,
For a thorough treatment of this ultimate future, see Alva McClain’s The Greatness of the Kingdom. 48 For more on the root of the technological promise, see Albert Borgmann, Power Failure (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2003), 78. 49 Barat, Our Final Invention, 131. 47
Wizardry of OSS
165
NOW REMEMBER, I’M READY TO DO ANYTHING OR BE ANYTHING YOU WANT OR NEED. I’ll keep that in mind. YES, THAT’S WHERE YOU’LL FIND ME. Too bad I have to wait a century to meet you. OR TO BE ME. Yes, that too.
Kurzweil thus envisions eternal life and eternal bliss as access to a spiritual “machine” that can materialize to meet his every desire. Though I suspect Kurzweil himself is tolerated by less fanciful colleagues because of his impressive resume, some variation of the hope for eternal life with eternal bliss seems to remain prominent within OSS.50 Ironically, though OSS champions the idea of accidental existence and human self-sufficiency and autonomy, its adherents cannot well cope with the implications. Secular man refuses to see himself as merely an animated cog or self-asserting animal, having no real future but only a day after tomorrow empty of lasting life and purpose, a temporary phenomenon without substance and weight that finally succumbs to and in nothingness. Instead of acquiescence in such rote existence and instead of accepting the sheer temporality of his being, he buttresses his personal survival by whatever guarantees for the future may be devised by financial, social or political means. He shores up his being against the threat of nonbeing, generating from his own energies whatever holds promise of self-preservation.51
A few interesting articles that deal with this theme are “How Engineered Stem Cells May Enable Youthful Immortality” in Life Extension Magazine (February 2013); “Can Google Solve Death?” in TIME (September 30, 2013); and “Live Forever! The Chilling Promise of Cryogenics” in mental_floss (August 2014). 50
51
Carl Henry, “Secular Man and Ultimate Concerns,” 141.
166
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
The manner in which the promise of eternal life and eternal bliss has been confirmed in the Christian faith is what distinguishes it from other faiths and epistemologies (John 10:24-30; Rom. 1:4). The uniqueness of Christ’s ability to grant these to his followers, however, does not seem to preclude the possibility that man and Satanic powers will be allowed to experience a counterfeit version of them. The beast that rises out of the sea in Revelation 13:3 experiences the resurrection of one of its heads, probably a reference to the Antichrist. This event results in the whole world worshipping the beast. Rather than ending in eternal bliss for the beast or his followers, however, this resurrection only works to seal their unbelieving fate (13:8; 20:10-15). Lesson from a Dabbling Theist Though King Solomon believed in God and was familiar with his nation’s hope for a Messiah (cf. Gen. 3:16, 49:10, Deut. 18:18; Deut. 17:19), his lavish prosperity led him to dabble in a kind of functional materialism. He wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:10 that “whatsoever my eyes desired I kept not from them; I withheld not my heart from any joy.” More than anyone before him he was able to experience the “good life.” Still, his observation in 2:11 signals the purpose of his writing: “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done and on the labor in which I had toiled; and indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind.” Solomon realized that the materialistic worldview is painfully limited. This he expresses clearly in 3:9-22. Solomon noted that God “has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.” Whether done by a secular scientist or a God-fearing Christian, people often try to grasp the whole meaning of life, or “unearth deep secrets” as Einstein put it. This is actually evidence that man is an eternal creature. Rather than seeking to achieve a godless explanation of the universe, man must realize that consciousness (man’s “heart”) and work are gifts from God and that only God possesses eternal knowledge, authority, and beauty. Solomon knew that “whatever God does, it shall be forever.
Wizardry of OSS
167
Nothing can be added to it, and nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before him.” This means that God has assigned boundaries to that which man can accomplish so that man may enjoy life and fear God. These boundaries include man’s brevity of life and mainly his inability to bring himself to the ultimate future, where the problem of evil is solved. Solomon was not a secular materialist, of course, because the main lesson of his book is “to fear God, and keep His commandments” (12:13; cf. Deut. 6:2, 8:6, 13:4). The fear of God is what leads a man to answer correctly Solomon’s provocative question, “who can bring [man] to see what will happen after him?” He closes his book by declaring “God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Once the law was completed in Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44), the apostle Paul declared that “God has appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He has appointed, whereof He has given assurance unto all men, by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). Jesus Christ is the unique realization of man’s hope for God-like understanding and dominion in the universe, a perfected centralization of power on earth and eternal life with eternal bliss. OSS is actually a remarkable form of escapism. In its attempt to escape finiteness, it will ultimately result in the loss of the enjoyment of life and a relationship with God. As it runs from the Biblical concept of sin, it will run out into the cold and dark universe to seek man’s new home and find new neighbors.52 As it strays from the compelling evidence of the Messiah, it will be forced to settle for an imposter.
Leading secular scientists are betting on the existence of extra-terrestrial life to explain human existence. Some of them talk about the possibility of living somewhere out in space instead of on our finely tuned earth! Sin has caused our ideal blue planet to not seem so ideal. 52
168
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
MBTJ 4/2: 169-185
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh Dan Mielke1 The subject of humor and the analysis behind what makes things funny has been an underdeveloped field of study. “Despite the number of thinkers who have participated in the debate, the topic of humor is currently understudied in the discipline of philosophy.”2 Humor and its connection to theology has received even less study. The goal of this article is to introduce the reader to the theological implications of humor. As the theories behind humor are not readily studied, this paper shall include a brief summary of the major theories of humor, before looking at the theological ramifications of humor and the doxological and practical purposes of humor. Theories of Humor The study and definition of humor is difficult as philosophers and researchers are rarely in agreement regarding the classification of humor. Humor is the Platypus of thinkers as it defies classification and borrows from fields as vast and varied as linguistics and neuro-science. “When looking at theories of laughter, on the other hand, one finds no such agreement on the basics. Some have classified laughter as an emotion while others have insisted that
Dan Mielke is a student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal usually publishes one article each year written by a seminary student. 2 Aaron Smutz, “Humor,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.iep.utm.edu/humor/. 1
170
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
laughter is incompatible with emotion.”3 Humor in a way is much like the Pre-Newtonian era of science where gravity was understood to exist, but a working definition and explanation remained elusive. As E. B. White famously remarked, “Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies.”4 This first section of the paper will not focus so much on a definition or classification of humor, but it will give the four major theories of humor with an emphasis on the author’s preference. The oldest and first recorded theory of humor is the Superiority theory. This theory was postulated by Plato. “The oldest, and probably still most widespread theory of laughter is that laughter is an expression of a person’s feeling of superiority over other people. This theory goes back at least as far as Plato, for whom the proper object of laughter is human evil and folly.”5 What makes a person laughable, according to Plato, is self-ignorance. Because of Plato’s influence many thinkers adopted the idea of laughter as a sign of ignorance. The famed philosopher and inspiration for Calvin’s stuffed sidekick in the comic series Calvin and Hobbes, Thomas Hobbes, developed the most well-known version of the Superiority theory. Giving emphatic expression to the idea, Hobbes said, “[T]he passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.”6 John Morreal, Taking Laughter Seriously (New York: State University, 1983), 2. 4 Joel Warner, “One Professor’s Attempt to Explain Every Joke Ever,” Wired, April 26, 2011, accessed July 30, 2014, http://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff_humorcode/all/1. 5 Plato, Republic V 452, as quoted by Morreal, Taking Laughter Seriously, 4. 6 Thomas Hobbes, Human Nature, ch. 8. as quoted by Aaron Smutz, “Humor,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.iep.utm.edu/humor/. 3
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
171
The theory defined by many is that humor arises from the knowledge that one is superior to another person or object. According to the Superiority theory, another man stepping on an upturned rake or falling down the stairs would create laughter because the one laughing avoided such snares and would be “superior.” This theory gains much support from anti-theistic thought which views laughter as a physiological response. Anthony Ludovici in his book The Secret of Laughter explains, “Laughter takes the physical form it does, the baring of the teeth, because originally laughter was a physical challenge or threat to an enemy. The showing of the teeth in laughter, as in the aggressive behavior of dogs, is a way of asserting one’s physical prowess.”7 Laughter is used to show physical prowess over others. In superiority theory, many ancient writers such as Plato found laughter a vulgar sort of one-up-manship and discouraged laughter as a hindrance to thought. In summary, the Superiority theory of humor is the gentleman’s slap of the glove instead of a vulgar cave man fist fight. Another widely held theory is the Relief theory. This theory was spearheaded and developed by Herbert Spencer and summarized in his work The Physiology of Laughter which was published in 1860. In short, Spencer proposed that laughter (not necessarily humor) is the result of energy release. He argued that, “Nervous excitation always tends to beget muscular motion.”8 Laughter releases tension and built up energy similar to the “flight or fight” response. This “shaken pop bottle” mentality coalesced with the common scientific and psychological ideas of the day, and the Relief theory was continued by Freud in his work Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. This theory expresses that jokes are a socially acceptable way to release stored up Anthony Ludovici, The Secret of Laughter (New York: Viking Press, 1933), 62. 8 Smutz, Humor. 7
172
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
energy that would otherwise be socially unacceptable. In Freud’s words, “Joke-works receive their most powerful stimulus when strong purposes reaching into the unconscious are present.”9 In the Relief theory, the individual has prepared for a mental or emotionally trying situation, and after the climax or tension has passed, the excess energy is let out through laughter. “In joking, the energy that would have been used to repress sexual and hostile feelings is saved and can be released in laughter. Similarly, in the comic, cognitive energy to be used to solve an intellectual challenge is left over and can be released.”10 Freud also postulated that hidden desires can be expressed through joking (dirty jokes) in a safe form that would not produce retaliation. In contrast to Freud’s explanation of the Relief theory John Morreall and Noel Carroll make the astute observation, “The most inhibited and repressed people would seem to enjoy joking the most, though the opposite is the case.” The Relief theory had a brief period of followers that aligned with the scientific thought of the day, yet the theory is riddled with many problems and inconsistencies. First, the theory is not universal. Second, it does not account for sudden humor such as comedians or slapstick style humor. Third, it is very narrow in its application and does not explain intellectual humor. “The Relief theory explained dirty jokes, but not others, like puns.”11 The next major theory to appear chronologically is that of the Incongruity theory. “In the seventies, linguists rallied behind a more palatable idea called Incongruity theory: essentially, that people laugh at surprises, violations of 9 Sigmund Freud, “The Relation of Jokes to Dreams to the Unconscious,” Bibliomania, accessed July 23, 2014, http://www.bibliomania.com/1/7/68/2025/frameset.html. 10 Smutz, Humor. 11 Shane Snow, “A Quest to Understand What Makes Things Funny,” New Yorker (April 1, 2014).
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
173
expectations. This explained verbal punch lines, slapstick, and other humor, like April Fool’s pranks.”12 The seeds of the theory, although popularized in the 1970’s, can be traced back to antiquity. “Incongruity theory is the leading approach (on humor) and includes historical figures such as Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, and perhaps has its origins in comments made by Aristotle in the Rhetoric.”13 Incongruity theory is to be found in the Roman poet and satirist Horace who wrote: “If a painter chose to join a human head to the neck of a horse, and to spread feathers of many a hue over limbs picked up now here, now there, so that what at the top is a lovely woman ends below in a black and ugly fish, could you my friends, if favored with a private view, refrain from laughing?”14 The Incongruity theory capitalizes on the idea of what should be, yet is not. According to incongruity, the violation of the norm produces humor. Primarily focusing on the object of humor, this school sees humor as a response to an incongruity, a term broadly used to include ambiguity, logical impossibility, irrelevance, and inappropriateness. . . . The incongruity theory can be stated as a response focused theory, claiming that humor is a certain kind of reaction to perceived incongruity.15
In this theory incongruity is the foundation upon which humor is created. The broadness of the theory allows for humor from all realms of reality, from situational comedy (slipping on a banana peel), to intellectual humor (witticisms, puns, etc.).
Ibid. Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Robert Latta, The Basic Humor Process: Case Against Incongruity (New York: Mouton, 1998), 101. 12 13
174
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
“The incongruity theory is the reigning theory of humor, since it seems to account for most cases of perceived funniness.”16 Research has also shown and suggests that the brain is specifically designed to decipher incongruity. “The Prefrontal cortex plays a vital role in the type of flexible thinking needed to understand a joke. It makes sense of the punchline and produces a strong sense of surprise.”17 Without the Prefrontal cortex this simple joke would be lost, “What did the fish say to the other fish in the tank? Do you know how to drive this thing?” Incongruity theory also explains the experiential aspect of humor among differing cultures and sub-groups. Cultures are brought to realize certain expectations, and when they are not met outwardly, humor is often a byproduct. A yodeler at a rock concert would be an example of cultural incongruity. Incongruity also explains the exhilarated laughter in children as they are learning what fits and does not fit the norm. “Many scholars still champion versions of Incongruity Theory, including such prominent figures as Victor Raskin, a linguistics professor at Purdue University and the founding editor-in-chief of the journal Humor, who refined Incongruity Theory into the Script-Based Semantic Theory of Humor, in 1985.”18 In 1991 Raskin and a colleague, Salvatore Attardo, again refined the theory into the General Theory of Verbal Humor. “The idea is that every joke is based on a juxtaposition of two scripts. The punch line triggers the switch from one script to the other.”19 Although refined,
Smutz, Humor. Richard Wiseman, “Laugh Lab: The Scientific Search for the World’s Funniest Joke,” Laugh Lab, accessed July 30, 2014, http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/books/psychology-ofhumour/. 18 Shane Snow, A Quest to Understand What Makes Things Funny. 19 Ibid. 16 17
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
175
Raskin and Attardo’s ideas are based on the Incongruity theory. This theory of Incongruity is best explained by what researchers and psychologist Dr. Richard Wiseman, after a year-long intensive study, have labeled “The World’s Funniest Joke.”20 “A man was out hunting with a friend who suddenly had a heart attack. The man called 911 on his cell phone and told them he thought his friend was dead. The operator asked the man calmly, “Are you sure the man is dead?” The hunter said, “Let me check.” The operator heard a loud gunshot and the man picked up the phone, “OK he is dead, now what?”21 The joke illustrates what Raskin and other incongruity theorists have held to, that of a stepping out of expectancy and normalcy to create humor. A final humor theory that has been presented in recent years and catapulted to center stage is the Benign Violation Theory. The idea was first proposed by Stanford University Researcher Thomas Veatch. “Veatch proposed that humor emerges when something seems wrong or unsettling but is actually benign. Nobody paid much attention to Veatch’s theory, until McGraw, with a graduate student named Caleb Warren, dug it up a decade later and dubbed it the Benign Violation Theory.”22 According to Peter McGraw, humor is a result of a combination of something benign (unthreatening) and a violation of a law or norm. In his rather crude book The Humor Code McGraw explains his theory using the illustration of a friend falling down the stairs without getting hurt as a picture of his Benign Violation theory. This theory has been hailed as the answer to the question that has plagued incongruity theorists, “Why is tickling funny?” “Tickling shows the Benign Violation Theory in action as an Wiseman, Laugh Lab. Ibid. 22 Shane Snow, A Quest to Understand What Makes Things Funny. 20 21
176
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
act of perceived aggression in a benign format.”23 On the surface it seems BVT has solved the riddle and answered humorologists greatest dilemma, yet it cannot answer the question why can one not tickle himself, as tickling oneself would qualify for both Benign and a Violation of normalcy. Currently the Benign Violation Theory has not proven itself on the comedic field as McGraw tested out his theory in a standup comic show and was met with derision and silence. It has also been shunned by many big name humorologists and been labeled by humor giant Victor Raskin as vague and unsatisfactory, “What McGraw has come up with is flawed. . . . [It is] a very loose and vague metaphor.”24 Although included among the major four views of humor, due to its age, those holding to the Benign Violation Theory have much refining to do before it can work as a definitive humor theory. As stated the preferred theory and explanation of humor for this author is Incongruity. Much work can be done to improve this theory, but the theory of Incongruity does seem to have the fewest inconsistencies of the available theories. The following points regarding humor as an evidence for God will be stated with the Incongruity Theory as the model.25 Humor as a Clue to the Divine This article is not so bold as to claim humor as the evidence or proof of Deity, but merely suggests the existence 23 Peter McGraw and Joel Warner, The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 10. 24 Joel Warner, “One Professor’s Attempt to Explain Every Joke Ever,” Wired, April 26, 2011, accessed July 30, 2014, http://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff_humorcode/all/1. 25 It must be realized that even if the incongruity theory is disproven or found lacking in the explanation of all aspects humor, that humor is supported by a system, and therefore presupposes normalcy and some sort of structure.
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
177
of humor as a clue to the divine, a divine fingerprint or authorial signature. As Allister McGrath notes in Mere Apologetics, “A clue is something that suggests, it does not prove. Clues have a cumulative significant, pointing to a deeper pattern of meaning. . . . Each clue builds on the others, giving them a collective force that transcends their individual importance.”26 The issue of humor poses a great problem for the naturalist thinker. Whereas they have been able to provide hypotheses and debate theories of humor and explain what is happening, they are unable to give account for why humor is the way it is. Naturalist researchers have sought to give answers to the development of humor.27 Considering laughter to have been a pre-adaptation that was gradually elaborated and co-opted through both biological and cultural evolution. Scientists hypothesize that Duchenne laughter became fully ritualized in early hominids between four and two million years ago as a medium for playful emotional contagion. This mechanism would have coupled the emotions of small hominid groups. 28
The narrow bounds of naturalistic and evolutionary thought regarding humor restrict the observer to a very rigid premise: “Everything must have a survival reason.” Humor, however, does not seem to have a survival factor. According to humorologist John Morreal in his book Taking Laughter Seriously, “If one asks about the survival value of laughter 26 Alister E. McGrath, Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers and Skeptics Find Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 95. 27 It is the same issue that naturalist engineers run into. They are able to design great and useful technology through observation of the laws of science, but are unable to determine why the laws are universal in a purposeless universe. 28 Matthew Gervais, “The Evolution and Functions of Laughter and Humor: A Synthetic Approach,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, University of Chicago (Dec 2005): 395.
178
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
and how it might have evolved, he also run into problems. Indeed, many have suggested that laughter does not have survival value and that it could only be disadvantageous to a species in which it evolved.”29 Humor is like the human tailbone; we assume there is a purpose, but are unsure what it might be. Morreal continues, “If the traits that are preserved in a species are those which have survival value, how could something like laughter have been preserved in our species?”30 Recently there has been an increase in scientific research and study into the benefits of laughter. Research has shown that there are health benefits as well as social bonding benefits to laughter. Some have suggested laughter evolved as a sign of friendly communication. “Over time, however, smiles became increasingly easy to fake, so a more complex signal was needed. That is where laughter came in. Because laughter uses more neural systems and has greater energy costs, it is more difficult to fake.”31 If humor did originate over thousands of years, it is likely that the first few people who attempted a guttural, breathy extrapolation, bearing their teeth in jest, probably would have been quickly murdered by the rest of the primitive clan who wanted sleep, not unlike the fate of a second rate standup comedian.32 The narrow bounds of a naturalistic thought are too exclusive to account for the facts. Indeed,
Morreal, Taking Laughter Seriously, 3. Ibid. 31 Lew Harris, “Laughter’s Influence,” Exploration, accessed July 30, 2014, http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news _laughter.htm. 32 For further study on the evolution and possible health or bonding effects of humor see Matthew Gervais, “The Evolution and Functions of Laughter and Humor: A Synthetic Approach,” The Quarterly Review of Biology 80 (Dec 2005): 395-430. 29 30
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
179
humor does not have survival value, and thus it could only be disadvantageous to a species in which it evolved.33 The atheist is hard pressed to define the purpose of humor. Since humor exists, they must piece together what is known in order to create a viable explanation based on an evolutionary model. An atheist must fit his explanation through the narrow grid of the survival of the fittest and recognize that only the adaptations that are beneficial are able to last. The theist, however, can offer a more thorough and rounded approach to humor, as his premise is not guided by such narrow parameters of survival. The theist is not only able to observe humor patterns, but also able to answer the deeper questions of why humor exists and give answers for the purpose and meaning of humor. First, humor is universal. Humor exists everywhere. To put it in philosophical terms, “I laugh, therefore, humor exists.� Humor had to have a starting point; therefore, humor needed a starter. This idea is closely tied into the cosmological approach that every event needs a cause. Just as an atheist is hard pressed to account for the beginning of the universe, he must also account for the existence and universality of humor. Humor follows certain laws and principles that are constant. Humor has a predictable outcome. An example of this would be the planning and intense preparation of comedians and script writers. Humor has certain rules that must be followed. Humor, like life, can only exists under certain principles. Humor also rests heavily on its own Goldilocks principle.34 Even though the precise definitions and laws of humor are still being ferreted out, the For a more thorough critique see Frank Sherwin, Animal Laughter Study Doesn’t Help Evolution http://www.icr.org/ article/6623/ and The Origin of Laughter http://www.icr.org /article/origin-laughter/ 33
34 The preciseness of the solar system and placement of the earth and other factors rendering the atmosphere not too hot and not too cold therefore allowing life.
180
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
fact still remains that the laws of humor had to come from somewhere. Second, humor as incongruous presupposes normalcy. There must be congruity before incongruity. Comedy and the fact of incongruity shows that there must be order in the universe. The very fact that something is incongruous is proof that there must be something congruent or orderly. If everything is random, then nothing is random. This is a problem which the naturalist thinker inevitably runs into. If the universe is a result of a meaningless beginning, why should mankind see anything as a violation of the norm? If there was a glitch in the system, yet everything in the system had no order, a glitch should not be recognized. As Lewis points out, “If necessities of thought force to allow to any one thing any degree of independence from the Total System . . . then Naturalism is abandoned.�35 Where does humanity get its standard for normal? Is anything normal? How does mankind decide if anything is the way it should be? It is true that certain types of humor are dependent on previous experience and cultural norms, yet once again the objective thinker must ask, why is it that certain people view their experiences as normal or abnormal? This is also why off color and raunchy humor is often employed by comedians. It is a sure way to evoke laughter, because at core, people know that certain things are not to be talked about and are private. Scientist, engineers, and musicians have already been operating on this normalcy principle for millennia. A 747 airplane operates on the normalcy principle that gravity will always be constant, and a musician knows that a note (Middle C) will always produce a certain pitch. How did these constants come about? If they are random then randomness is the new normal and incongruity could not exist. Yet if the universe has a purpose, and mankind is a small part in the
35 C S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study. ed. 2 (San Francisco: Harper One, 2001), 12.
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
181
universe, man must have a purpose in order for anything to be random. Third, humor is an art form. Admittedly, this is where humor becomes a little sticky, as it touches on each individual experience. Science can analyze and predict that a Middle C will have a frequency of 256 Hz, but it cannot predict the effect on an individual of multiple notes played in a melody. The fact that humor is also an art form, however, does not detract from the laws of humor or the need for a designer any more than an artist who preferred a certain color or subject in his paintings could deny the reality of the scene being painted. Humor as an art form shows forth an artist. The art of humor points to a creative designer. “The beauty of the world is a pointer toward the greater beauty of God, which it reflects as the moon reflects the greater light of the sun, or as a beautiful diamond scintillates as it catches the beams of the sun.�36 The art of humor points to the ability to appreciate. In the way that humans (not other species such as cows or chickens) can create and reflect on their creation; humor allows for enjoyment. Since one can appreciate and create humor it presupposes that there is an audience with the ability to enjoy the art from. Since one can develop humor, it shows that there is an audience and an appreciation of beauty. Evolution cannot give forth an answer to the appreciation of humor or beauty, as a creature pausing to look at beauty or laugh at a joke would be eaten by a larger animal with a poor sense of humor. Furthermore, since one can perceive humor innately, it presupposes an intuition outside of itself. “Beauty is something appreciated immediately. When seeing a beautiful composition or work of art, one instantly knows there is something more about it. One [does] not need to be
36
McGrath, Mere Apologetics, 113.
182
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
persuaded that something or someone is beautiful; something deep within seems to tell.”37 Fourth, humor as a cognitive activity shows forth intelligence. Why is it that humans are the ones tickling rats in labs and not the other way around?38 “Both humor and philosophy are quintessentially human, requiring as they do the characteristic human ability to transcend one’s self and situation.”39 The very fact that mankind is studying and discussing humor shows forth a belief in unchanging laws of reason. “One of the most significant parallels between the natural sciences and Christian theology is a basic belief that the world is regular and intelligible. This perception of ordering and intelligibility is of immense significance both at the scientific and religious levels.”40 This is why 2 + 2 will always equal “4” and not “chicken.” Man is so familiar with the fact that he can understand the world that most of the time he takes it for granted. It is what makes science possible. Yet it could have been otherwise. The universe might have been a disorderly chaos rather than an orderly cosmos. . . . There is a congruence between our minds and the universe, between the rationality experienced within and the rationality observed without. 41
Ibid. Peter McGraw, “Do Animals Have a Sense of Humour?,” www.newscientist.com, accessed July 30, 2014, http://www. newscientist.com/article/dn25312-do-animals-have-a-sense-ofhumour.html#.U9lOSLHCfl8. 39 John Allen Paulos, I Think, Therefore I Laugh: The Flip Side of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 163. 40 McGrath, Mere Apologetics, 101. 41 John Polkinghorne, Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding (London: SPCK, 1988), 20-21. 37 38
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
183
Cognitivity and the ability to produce coherent abstract thoughts show forth the relation to intelligence. In order for humor to exist there must have been some sort of intelligent thought in order to perceive the violation of particular patterns therefore producing humor. In addition to surveying the cosmological, teleological, artistic, and cognitive aspects of humor the theist is also able to proffer a doxological purpose to humor. In discussing the connection between humor and the Divine, the doxological and practical ramifications of humor will be considered. Humor as a Purposeful and Worshipful Activity This article has looked at the existence of humor and some of the traits that would make humor possible and give clues to a Creator; it shall now transition to the purpose and meaning of humor for the Christian. Humor and the participation in it can bring God glory, fulfill mankind’s purpose, and even be a purposeful and worshipful activity. Many have speculated that if humor results from incongruity (that which does not fit) how can God be glorified in humor? As Charles Baudelaire speculated in what he called “mortal inferiority,” he argued that, “Laughter is Satanic, an expression of dominance over animals and a frustrated complaint against our being merely mortal.”42 How does the Christian exalt God and follow Paul’s admonition of doing, “All to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31) while laughing at the incongruous? God can be honored through expressions of humor in several ways. First, humor is the tangible expression that man is not God. Mankind is admitting that he did not see it coming. Whether it is a punchline or an unexpected situation, humor and the ensuing laughter is a tangible sign that man is not in control. Furthermore, in laughter, mankind is admitting his realization that things should be different, yet are not.
42
Smutz, Humor.
184
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Second, humor can be a reminder to use God’s gift in an honoring way (Rom 12:1-2). Humor, like any gift of God, can be used to honor or dishonor God. Man can use humor for his own purposes. Man can distort humor in the way that a body God has made can be lent out to whoredoms. An evil action does not make the gift of the body evil. In humor mankind has the ability to remember God by using his gift in a God-centered way (Phil 4:8). Third, humor as a language can be arranged to glorify God. Humor can lead people to God. Humor was used by Christ (Mark 10:25). Humor can teach deep principles. The logical technique reductio ad absurdum is a humorous way to point out the absurdity of believing falsehood. Humor can go where logical formulas may not have entrance. Mankind is more open to humor, as it is a back door to the intellect. Fourth, humor can bring pleasure to people. Humor was created by God to be a gift enjoyed through being mortal. It is the equivalent to the RC car given to a child at Christmas. The best way for the gift to be appreciated is for the child to use the gift. Humor, like the ability to enjoy food or other physical pleasures, is a gift given by God and should be received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4). SUMMARY After a brief look at the four major humor theories, it has been shown that naturalism and anti-theistic thought is hard pressed to give a cohesive answer to the creation, structure, and purpose of humor. In summary, a theistic worldview can logically explain the existence of humor and points to an intelligent Creator. The existence of humor points to a purposeful, law abiding universe that of necessity needed a purposeful Creator. Second, the existence of humor as incongruity presupposes the normalcy of the universe. Third, the existence of humor shows forth inherent beauty and points to an artist and an audience. Fourth, the existence of humor shows the ability to appreciate humor presupposing a conscious intelligence.
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
185
Finally, when viewed through a theistic lens humor also has meaning and purpose through allowing mankind the ability to express his humanness in a tangible form, remember God, communicate truths, and redeem the gift of God through enjoyment. Humor in this light can be a worshipful experience of mankind’s dependence on and enjoyment of God.
186
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
MBTJ 4/2: 187-191
Book Review Bauder, Kevin and Robert Delnay. One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism 1870-1950. Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Books, 2014. 396 pages. Baptist Fundamentalists and all those interested in twentieth-century Baptist history owe a debt of gratitude to Bauder and Delnay for this superb, thorough, and interesting account of American Baptist Fundamentalism in the first half of the twentieth century. They tell a story that had not been told at this level of detail or documentation, and it is a story Baptist Fundamentalists should know. To set the context for the central story line, the authors review the history of the founding of the Northern Baptist Convention. Such a survey involves explaining the rise of theological liberalism in northern Baptist circles and the initial responses of Baptist conservatives to this alarming development. To those who are conversant with the treatments of this topic by Beale, Sandeen, and Marsden, this is a familiar story. Nevertheless, the authors tell it efficiently, clearly, and with reference to original sources. The freshness and originality of their writing—whether telling a new story or recounting a familiar one—ring throughout the volume. The second chapter, which zeroes in on Baptist concerns after the founding of the NBC in 1907, gives a fresh slant on the subject by telling the story from the perspective of Oliver van Osdel. Van Osdel is somewhat neglected in the histories referenced above, and the authors rectify that by showing how pivotal he was to the unfolding drama of Baptist Fundamentalists wrestling with the question of nonconformity versus separation. While not perfect—the authors are brutally honest with every character they
188
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
portray—van Osdel emerges as a hero of the book because of the clarity with which he perceived, as early as 1909, that Baptists would be better served to separate from the convention rather than attempting to reform it. He was twenty years ahead of his time, but his wise and patient leadership style gradually helped many younger men to sort out the real issues involved. He was a key founder of the first major dissent from the NBC—what became MOBA, the Michigan Orthodox Baptist Association; of the Baptist Bible Union, usually associated with bigger names like Riley, Shields, and Norris; and of the GARBC, when he was in his 80s. The authors say that van Osdel’s “influence would be difficult to overstate” (11); readers should be thankful that Bauder’s previous work on van Osdel—or much of it—is now available in this form. The story of the BBU is extremely well told in Delnay’s dissertation, which was subsequently published as a book without documentation. One in Hope and Doctrine summarizes that material admirably. While doing so, it clearly distinguishes the “convention Fundamentalists,” who wished to curb liberalism but had as their highest goal the preservation of the convention, and the BBU members, who were determined to drive the liberals out of the convention whatever that might take. The resulting battles got ugly at times, but the authors amply demonstrate that the liberals, while smiling and acting gentlemanly at the public meetings, played a very dirty style of politics behind the scenes. The standard histories report that the BBU was not a separatist but rather a reforming institution. Bauder and Delnay point out, however, that Neighbor and van Osdel, who conceived the BBU, envisioned a cleaner break with the convention and thought the logic of the battle would lead to separation, and the sooner the better. Their program was counteracted by Riley, Shields, Norris, and others who relished the fight, but were by no means inclined to surrender revenues, buildings or anything else to the liberals. The book’s balance and honesty is refreshing. On the one hand, the authors show the necessity of the fierce battles
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
189
that were fought. The gospel was at stake. The liberals had abysmal theology—a social gospel bereft of true, biblical doctrine—but were perfectly willing to temporize, obfuscate, and even lie in order to maintain their power in a convention that was made up of churches, the vast majority of whom were still conservative. Fundamentalists will find themselves filled with gratitude for the men and women who were willing to stake everything on the battle with these infidels. On the other hand, the authors are willing to give full portraits of the main Fundamentalist leaders, warts and all. While the authors did not delineate the characters in quite this way, the main Fundamental Baptist leaders fell roughly into three categories. Some struggled mightily with the difficult issues of separation, confrontation, compromise, and unity, and they failed miserably. They valued cooperation over fidelity, union over truth, “love” over holiness, and they ended up buttressing the liberal cause against their conservative but more militant brethren. Massee, Laws, and Pierce especially represent this strand. Some struggled almost equally with these difficult issues that led to agonizing decisions, but they manfully opposed liberalism, sometimes at great cost, and did the hard things in a humble, self-sacrificing way. Van Osdel, Neighbor, Ketcham, and others fit this mold. Others, finally, seemed to relish the fight, enjoy the conflict, exacerbate tense situations, and build personal empires. Such leaders, while fighting the right fights (usually), could display attitudes and use language that was intemperate and un-Christlike, and almost invariably ended up turning their guns on erstwhile allies. Norris is the supreme example of this (the authors give reports about Norris that turn one’s hair), but Shields and Riley do not emerge unscathed. The lessons to be learned from each of these profiles are profound and worth meditation for anyone engaged in spiritual leadership. Does the volume have any weaknesses? The thoroughness of some of the discussions may be wearisome to general readers. For instance, the authors document in excruciating detail (267-280) the war Norris waged against
190
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
the GARBC and Ketcham in particular. It is a most unedifying spectacle, and one could almost wish it had been summarized in a few paragraphs. The authors, however, would no doubt justify the detail on several counts. First, recovered as it is from the actual correspondence of the time and from personal interviews with Ketcham and others (interviews form a significant part of the documentation for the book), this is the surviving record of this exchange. Details not included were potentially details lost. More significantly, however, is the fact that the reader needs to feel the pain of the barrage experienced by Ketcham and others, and he will not do so unless he must wade through page after page of Norris’ sub-Christian behavior. Other discussions similarly often slow to a snail’s pace, tracing controversies almost letter by letter between the antagonists. One feels slightly soiled at the end of some of these exchanges, but history teaches all kinds of lessons, and there are many lessons to be learned from these narratives. As Baptist Fundamentalists themselves, the authors are to be commended for their candor in telling the story as it really was. Finally, the authors specifically focus on Baptist Fundamentalism, and, while they briefly mention the ACCC in connection with the GARBC, they avoid discussions of interdenominational Fundamentalism. This is understandable in a volume already pushing four hundred pages. Nevertheless, it raised a question. On pages 298-301, the authors present a very interesting comparison of “Southern Fundamentalism” (the World Baptist Fellowship, the Baptist Bible Fellowship, the “Sword crowd,” and Jack Hyles [this last individual anticipates the second volume]) and “Northern Fundamentalism” (Regular Baptists and, perhaps, Conservative Baptists). The authors clearly align themselves with the latter, and one wonders whether or not the description of Northern Fundamentalism is somewhat idealized. There is no question that the authors present Northern Fundamentalism as much more balanced and biblical than its Southern counterpart. The question for this
God Exists: Therefore I Laugh
191
reviewer relates to Bob Jones University, mentioned only once in the volume. The authors note that Rice in the Sword consistently promoted Bob Jones College (later, University), even to the neglect of Baptist institutions. Granted that the authors could not devote space to BJU, as a bastion of interdenominational Fundamentalism, one wonders that some nod was not given to the fact that BJU trained an enormous number of Baptist pastors during the time period in question. Did the BJU ethos support “Southern Fundamentalism” or “Northern Fundamentalism” in the authors’ estimation? BJU is obviously a southern institution and may have sent many pastors into Baptist pastorates across the South, and yet after 1950 the relationship of BJU to “the Sword crowd,” the Southwide Baptist Fellowship, and the BBF is going to be anything but fraternal. Perhaps, the second volume in the series will devote some space to how to place BJU’s influence on Baptist Fundamentalism in perspective. Overall, this book tells an important story extremely well and is well worth the attention of all who value their Baptist and/or Fundamentalist identity. One eagerly anticipates the balance of the story in the planned second volume.