On Mon, 18 May 1998 13:22:46 -0400, Jim Bell wrote:
>GM>Bloesch's demand means a disconnect between observation
>and scripture. He is removing history from the Bible.
[...]
JB>...you quote Ramm from 1954! And switch the issue from the
>theological to the scientific. Of course his data will be dated! But
>you haven't dealt with the scriptural issue. For that you need to read
>his "After Fundamentalism" (Harper & Row).
"After Fundamentalism" is mainly an analysis of of Karl Barth's
theology with respect to its relevance for the "The Future of
Evangelical Theology" (the book's subtitle). Here is a lengthy extract
from it. I pray that it might help Glenn see that there is more than one
way to skin a theological cat!
Ramm, who undertook postgraduate study under Barth in 1958,
regards Barth as orthodox and evangelical:
"I found a man universally respected. He was honored in such great
theological centers as Rome, Geneva, Paris, Copenhagen, Edinburgh,
Princeton, and Chicago. At the time of his retirement, he had a chest
full of eleven doctor's robes from the honorary degrees given to him
by great universities. While yet alive, he was compared to Augustine,
Thomas, Luther, Calvin, and Schleiermacher. On reading him, I did
not find him quite the kind of man that modern theologians would so
honor... I found him defending the ancient Christology of the church
fathers as well as their doctrine of the trinity. His statement on the
authority of Scripture would satisfy the most stringent orthodox
theologian. He defends the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, and
the cosmic, visible return of Christ...dozens of paragraphs and
sentences could be lifted out of Barth's Faith of the Church (lectures
on Calvin's Catechism) and recited before the most stringent
evangelical group, and, if the source were not known, the
evangelicals would endorse the statements as solid evangelical
theology. Or, to put it another way, no theologian in the tradition of
liberal Christianity could ever write the things one finds in Faith of the
Church." (Ramm B.L., "After Fundamentalism: The Future of
Evangelical Theology," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, 1983,
pp1112).
Ramm also considers Barth a theological genius:
"He cites the church fathers in their original Latin and Greek. He
knows the theologians of the Middle Ages, and he mastered the
theology of the Reformation. He cites Luther and Calvin more than
any other theologians in the history of theology....Barth had a genius
mentality. He could read rapidly, digest what he read, and profoundly
critique it. In Letters: 19611968, he repeatedly remarks about reading
through some large book on theology in one sitting. In a couple of
instances, he read two or more in one sitting. In his university days,
his papers ran from five to ten times the customary length. As a
genius, he saw far more relationships in an issue than did people of
even high intelligence. One of the most unusual experiences of my
academic life was to listen to Barth unpack, layer after layer, some
question posed by a student. I must admit that- among all the
professors I have had in undergraduate, professional, and graduate
workI have never encountered one with a mind like Barth's." (Ramm,
1983, p13)
Ramm opens his Chapter on Barth's "The Doctrine of Man", with:
"In many places in Church Dogmatics, Barth reveals that he
recognizes this difficult modern problem of defining the nature of man
(Mensch)... Accordingly, in the Church Dogmatics Barth has
attempted to give his theological definition of humanity." (Ramm,
1983, p151)
Contrary to Glenn's black-and-white dualism between YECs and
Liberals, with nothing in between, Barth was the leader of the Neo-
Orthodox school, which did not simply ignore the problem of the
relationship between the Genesis cosmology and that of modern
science:
"Barth's doctrine of man is set in the largest context of cosmology. In
speaking of cosmology in the Christian context, the Christian scholar
is faced with the problem of the relationship between the first
chapters of Genesis (and the cosmological picture presupposed there)
and the kind of cosmos depicted by modern science. The problem can
be sharply put this way. (1) on the one stand, revelation does not set
out the details of the manner in which the cosmos is put together in
anticipation of modern science. Yet (2) if the Old Testament is a
prescientific book, how can it escape the errors of a prescientific
cosmology?" (Ramm B.L., 1983, p152).
Barth creatively suggests a resolution of the problem by making a
distinction between a "worldview" and a "world-picture":
"One way of handling this problem is to make a distinction between a
world view (Weltanschauung) and a world picture (Weltbild). One's
theological and/or philosophical view of reality is one's world view;
one's understanding of how the cosmos is put together is one's world
picture. Hence the world view of Genesis is binding revelation, but
the world picture is not..." (Ramm B.L., 1983, p152).
In addition, Barth makes a distinction between a passage's literary
genre and its message:
"Another way of resolving the problem of a revelation written in a
prescientific period and yet retaining current authority is to make a
distinction between the literary genre of the passage and its
theological message. The genre is prescientific, the message is
theological...James Orr, the great Reformed theologian, followed a
similar strategy in his effort to harmonize the biblical record with
modern scientific knowledge. The Oriental genre is the vehicle
through which the revelation comes and is not binding; but the
theological message it conveys is binding." (Ramm B.L., 1983,
p152).
Thus Genesis 1 could even be a purified Babylonian myth (Barth
regarded it as *saga*), and still be the very Word of God, binding on
all man, in all cultures for all time. The medium is *not* the message!
Ramm points out that Barth, as a theology professor in a secular
university (Basel), was well aware of modern science:
"In Church Dogmatics (II/2), Barth faces the issue of Genesis and
science in a manner rare in his writing. In his comments, Barth reveals
that he knows well the outlines of modern science. Although he had
little passion for science as such, he was not as unlettered in science
as some thought him. It should also be mentioned that teaching in a
small, compact University structure, in contrast to our sprawling
American universities, Barth had intimate contact with university
scientists as well as having many friends who were scientists in
different fields (including psychiatry)." (Ramm B.L., 1983,
pp152153).
Having briefly established Barth's scientific `credentials', Ramm
continues with Barth's Bible-science strategy, his first point being that
there is no single, normative Biblical cosmology:
"His first step is to let the Genesis record stand as it is, a product of
the prescientific world with its prescientific cosmologies. Without
question, the cosmological backdrop in Genesis 2 is different from the
backdrop in Genesis 1. Furthermore, between Genesis 1 and
Revelation 22 many other cosmologies are introduced. According to
Barth, the only sensible thing is to admit the multiplicity. In this
connection, Barth makes one of his rare comments on obscurantism.
He says it has never won a battle-so why fight over the many biblical
cosmologies?" (Ramm B.L., 1983, p153).
This was close to Ramm's earlier views, expressed in his "The
Christian View of Science and Scripture" (1955):
"In discussing the Biblical cosmology we must return to our general
position defended earlier in this chapter: the references of the writers
of the Bible to natural things are popular, non-postulational, and in
terms of the culture in which the writers wrote. This principle applies
directly to Biblical cosmology. The language of the Bible with
reference to cosmological matters is in terms of the prevailing culture.
Biblical cosmology is in the language of antiquity and not of modern
science, nor is it filled with anticipations which the future microscope
and telescope will reveal. We do not agree with over-zealous
expositors who try to find Einsteinian and modern astro-physical
concepts buried in Hebrew words and expressions. We also disagree
with the religious liberals who object to Biblical cosmology because it
is not scientific. We object to the over zealous because it was not the
intention of inspiration to anticipate modern science, and we object to
the modernist because he sees too much in what is to us a truism. We
concur with Calvin, who taught that Gen. 1 is a record of the creation
of the world in the language of the common man and from the
viewpoint of common sense." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon, 1967
reprint, pp65-66)
Barth next step is to show that not only is the form of any particular
cosmology a major issue for the Biblical writers, it has not been a
major issue for Christian theologians:
"Barth's second step is to tell us that this multiplicity should not
distress us. Christian theologians have used all kinds of cosmologies,
from Plato's famous Timaeus to Aristotle's, Ptolemy's, Newton's, and
Einstein's. Yet the diversity has not disturbed our theological
craftsmanship. There is no common cosmology behind Sacred
Scripture. There is no common cosmology behind Christian theology.
So therefore the cosmological issue should not be a big issue in the
Scriptures nor Christian theology. If one demands that the Scripture
be innocent in the matter of cosmology, then we could not write
theology until Einstein!" (Ramm 1983, p153)
But Barth affirms that the message within the Biblical cosmology is
the Word of God:
"The third step is to assert that these texts (Genesis 1-3) are the
Word of God. The Word of God is "in, with, and under" the
cosmology. The cosmology is not the Word of God, but the message
within the cosmology is the Word of God. Revelation does not intend
to teach science, and therefore the Word of God is independent of the
cosmology. Therefore neither Holy Scripture or Christian theology is
involved in teaching cosmology. The theological teaching of the text
does not compete with modern cosmological explanations of the
universe." (Ramm 1983, p153).
Personally, I find this a bit too easy. Could Biblical writers and
Christian theologians use any cosmology, or are only some
cosmologies used that are congenial to the Christian message? For
example, the Big Bang seems more congenial to the Genesis 1
cosmology of a universe which had a sudden beginning at a point in
the past. And a multiple-universe cosmology is used by non-theists to
try to get around the argument from fine-tuning.
Barth's final step is to delineate clearly the respective work of
scientists and of theologians:
"The fourth step in his Bible-science stratefy is to outline the precise
nature of the work of scientists and of theologians.
1. If scientists do their work in theory construction within the limits
of the data themselves, scientists will never say anything contrary to
the Word of God. If scientists convert their theories into world views,
then it could well be that such world views could conflict with the
Word of God. For example, if physicists were to convert physics into
the metaphysics of materialism, they would conflict with the Word of
God." (Ramm 1983, p154).
This is similar to what Johnson says. Methodological naturalism
might be OK if it is simply a pragmatic means of exploring the
physical universe. It becomes metaphysical naturalism when it
converts the limitations of science (science can only study natural
causes) into limitations of reality (there are only natural causes).
But again I don't believe it is all that simple. When it comes to
*origins*, methodological naturalism may grade into metaphysical
naturalism. And human beings who habitually use methodological
naturalism may become metaphysical naturalists without realising it.
"2. If theologians restrict themselves to the Word of God and pure
theological statements about humanity, heaven, and earth, then
theologians will never say anything contrary to science. But if
theologians propose to also teach science in the name of theology,
they then may well run counter to current scientific
knowledge...Science and theology are both to be completely
determined by the nature of the subject matter they investigate. Or,
they are to be severely restricted to their very special subject matters.
Taking such care in methodology removes the conflict between
science and theology, between theologian and scientist." (Ramm
1983, p154).
There is a lot of truth in this. IMHO the creation-science program is
misguided. But again is it so simple? If "theologians" are to "never
say anything contrary to science", then what about science that may
be unethical, like making weapons of mass destruction, or
experiments on human beings like the Nazis did?
Ramm now turns to Barth's doctrine of man:
"Having set up his belief about cosmology in Scripture and theology,
and the relationship of science and theology, Barth then turns to the
doctrine of man. Barth reviews all sorts of efforts to show empirically
that the human being is superior to animals. Some have tried to prove
it by comparing the human brain with the animal brain. Others have
appealed to human ethical powers; others, to human rational powers;
and other to human existential nature to show how human beings
transcend the animal. All make a point, but none make a case. They
can show that the human being is different from animals, but they
cannot show how he or she uniquely transcends the animals so as to
be a creature of a different order. They prove the human being as
"superanimal" but not as "superhuman" (human in the image of
God)." (Ramm, 1983, pp154-155).
I think this is a good point, that Glenn (and Hugh Ross) could well
heed. Trying to show that man is different from the animals, can play
into the naturalists' hands. They can always show that animals can use
tools and that hominids may have had some abilities in common with
Homo sapiens. But the Biblical teaching is that only man (ie. Homo
sapiens) is in the image of God, a category revealed to man by God
(Gn 1:26-27; 9:6), not derived from nature by comparing man with
his fellow creatures.
Barth teaches that there are two complementary views of man:
"The essence of Barth's doctrine of man (Mensch) is based on his
distinction between phenomenal man and real man. Phenomenal man
is all that we know of man from all our human sciences. Real man is
man as he is known in divine revelation. We cannot derive real man
from phenomenal man and that is the error in all efforts to find the
real man by comparative anatomy or comparative psychology. The
Word of God tells us about the real man. The real man is man as he is
before God. Neither science nor psychology nor philosophy nor
general religious knowledge can reveal the real man. Barth is even
more precise. The nature of the real man is revealed in the human
nature of Jesus Christ. Hence Barth's doctrine is not only a revealed
doctrine of man but a Christological doctrine of man. In that the
phenomenal man and the real man are known by two totally separate
methods, our knowledge of the two does not conflict. The
psychiatrist and sociologist are not competing with the theologian, so
the theologian need not deny any knowledge of humanity they offer.
Nor can studies in the phenomenal man challenge that which we
know of the real man in the Word of God." (Ramm, 1983, p155)
Again, while I agree with much of this, I find it to be too
compartmentalised. Why should the the psychiatrist and sociologist
have free rein in defining man? Most psychiatrists and sociologists are
naturalists and they *do* compete with the theologian!
But Ramm points out that Barth did not claim a complete disjunction
between the two ways of knowing man. At the time he was writing
(early 20th century) in the heyday of liberalism, Barth was engaged
mainly in a defensive, holding strategy, until an evangelical counter-
offensive could begin, which is now under way.
"Barth suggests here and there that maybe in the future connections
will be found between science and revelation. Such a discovery would
also mean connections between our knowledge of phenomenal man
and of real man. Barth does not intend a radical disjunction between
the two ways of knowing man. But at the present time, in the current
state of theology, he has felt impelled to make such sharp
disjunctions. Too much theology is based on studies of phenomenal
man; for example, in existential theology. Therefore the radical
distinction between phenomenal man and real man must be drawn
before we can think of how they can be correlated." (Ramm, 1983,
pp155-156)
To Barth The key to man is His *relationship* with God:
"The doctrine of man also involves a theology of Heaven and Earth.
Heaven is the sphere of God; Earth is the sphere of man. These are
not cosmological conceptions; rather, they are theological and
relational concepts. Biblical anthropology is about man on Earth in
relationship to God in his Heaven. There is then no conflict or contest
between the notions of Heaven and Barth with relationship to our
understanding of the scientific notions of the Earth and the rest of
space" (Ramm, 1983, pp155-156)
This is a point I have made time and time again to Glenn:
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only
adham, as being made in His image. The point is emphasized by
repetition. Clearly, as man's story unfolds through subsequent
chapters, one discovers that what makes him different is a quality
called "spirit." Man is unique among all species of life. By "spirit" the
Bible means "aware of God and capable of forming a relationship
with Him." (Ross H.N., "The Fingerprint of God," 1991, pp159-160);
"In the Genesis creation account, soulish creatures (birds and
mammals endowed by God with mind, will, and emotions so that they
can form relationships with human beings), and spirit creatures
(human beings who in addition to the soulish features of birds and
mammals are also endowed by God with spirit that they can form a
relationship with God Himself) are distinguished from other animals
(invertebrates and lower vertebrates)." (Ross H.N., "Creation and
Time," 1994, p61);
but he just ignores it.
Ramm concludes with the point that Barth, unlike the
fundamentalists, did not deny the facts of science but unlike the
liberals, neither did he make unnecessary concessions to it:
"My purpose is not to reproduce Barth's thought in detail but to give
an idea of his methodology. I note in his doctrine of man no
obscurantism, but likewise no concessionism. He does not challenge
certain elements of biblical criticism nor modern scientific learning.
He is not obscurantist about biblical criticism or science. On this
score Barth does not bypass the Enlightenment and modern learning.
But neither does he concede to the Enlightenment or biblical criticism
or modern science in setting out the biblical and theological doctrine
of man. The liberal theologians were wrong in making such
concessions to modern learning and by so doing lost the integrity of
Christian theology. Fundamentalists do not properly interact with
modern learning and are thus condemned to the losing strategy of
obscurantism." (Ramm, 1983, p156)
Ramm applies this to evangelicals, noting there is "some measure of
obscurantism" in evangelical theology:
"Evangelicals have had their problems with their doctrine of man.
They have had to deny that there is an ancient cosmology in the Book
of Genesis. They have had been perplexed wit the apparent recency
of man according to Genesis and the radically longer history of man
as presented by the science of anthropology. Some evangelicals have
handled the problems by denying outright all biblical criticism and the
theory of evolution. Others have tried some sort of compromise
between biblical criticism, anthropological science, and the biblical
view of man. Still others have attempted to show on biological,
physiological, or psychological grounds that human beings are so
different from the highest primates that they must be in the image of
God. In all this, there is some measure of obscurantism." (Ramm,
1983, pp156-157)
But Ramm has some criticisms of Barth's solution, that it attempts to
have "the best of both worlds" and is "too artificial":
"On the surface, Barth's solution has the best of both worlds. Under
the concept of phenomenal man he can let the sciences claim all they
wish about man and yet insist that they come short of the final
assessment. Under the concept of real man he can claim all a
Christian theologian needs to claim about man being in the image of
God, yet not contradict any of the sciences. No doubt the theory has
some weaknesses. This distinction between the phenomenal man and
the real man may be too artificial. Perhaps we can learn so much of
the phenomenal man we may ignore the real man. But the strengths in
Barth's position can help evangelical theology. Barth does not have to
engage in obscurantism either with reference to biblical criticism or
the sciences. And he does give us a working solution so that we can
have some means of correlating the vast knowledge of man attained
by the sciences with what we believe is the most important
dimensions of man gained by divine revelation." (Ramm, 1983, p157).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------