Cornerstone Baptist Church

Free Seminary Theological Journal

Ontology

Volume I, Issue 1

October - 2015

2

3

Table of Contents

Letter to the Editor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Ontology and Aesthetics ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument: Limitations and Value ……………………………………………………. 20

Ontology and the Other …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28

A Review of K. Scott Oliphint’s Covenantal Apologetics …………………………………………………………. 39

On Thinking Biblically About Our Life in the World

An Interview with Dr. Michael Wittmer ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

4

5

A letter from the Editor

Theological Journals are super abundant. To the surprise of some there are hundreds of different

theological journals. Why add one more to this ever-growing list? Why publish one, in particular, in

conjunction with Cornerstone Baptist Church’s Free Seminary program? The answer to that question is

related to our overall goal for Free Seminary itself. We want a theological education that emphasizes the

practicality of theology. All our courses are designed to focus on leadership development and theology

applied to life. Likewise, The Free Seminary Theological Journal aims to bring academic theological

discussions down to the level of applied ministry and Christian living.

This raises, however, another question: why make our first issue about the rather esoteric subject of

ontology? Ontology is a philosophical term that refers to the study of the nature of being. It’s a branch

of metaphysics and hardly seems like the most accessible subject with which to launch a practical

theological journal. That, however, is, in part, what drove the decision. The goal of our first issue is to set

a tone for seeing the relationship between life and deep theological/philosophical thought. The two are

not inseparable, and it is not only a handful of doctrines and ideas that relate to how we live. The very

abstract concept of “being” has profound implications for our practical lives and ministries.

In this issue you will find three distinct articles broaching the subject of ontology. The first article is

designed to demonstrate the relationship between aesthetics and ontology. It explores the idea that

beauty is rooted in the personhood of the Triune God and from there has implications for three specific

areas of our life: our relationship to nature, our relationship to ourselves, and our relationship to others.

The second article, by Dylan Rowland, discusses the particular limitations and values of the Ontological

Argument for the existence of God. It focuses particularly on some of the devotional value that this

philosophical argument for God’s existence contains. Finally, Kyle Cayton will turn our attention to the

imago dei in others, and the value that this gives to their life. Each article applies the theme in different

ways to our practical lives.

In addition this issue contains a book review by Jeff Chamberlain and an interview with Dr. Michael

Wittmer, professor of Systematic Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. I am grateful for each

contributor’s involvement. This is, I hope, the first of many issues.

6

7

Ontology and Aesthetics

“The witness borne by Being becomes untrustworthy for the person who can no longer read the

language of beauty.” – Hans Urs Von Balthasar

What has beauty to do with theology? For centuries of academic theological study the answer has been,

largely, “nothing.” If Plato saw being as built upon the three transcendentals of the good, the true, and

the beautiful, much of modern theology has reduced its work simply to the true. Our interests, both

within the larger world and within the church, have been reduced to the pragmatic and utilitarian. We

have lost a sense of ontological value precisely because we have lost a theological aesthetic. In what

follows a case will be made for the interrelationship of aesthetics and ontology. We need a theological

aesthetic to make sense of existence. The case for this thesis will be rooted first in the substance of the

Triune God, and then related to the world.

The Transcendentals

It is no small thing to attempt a discussion of beauty. Philosophers have wrestled with both a definition

of beauty and the objectivity of judgments about it for centuries. To enter into that fray and attempt to

dispute with the likes of Plato, Kant, Aquinas, Hegel, and Croce would be foolish. My education does not

permit such advanced and technical interactions. Yet, we must say something about beauty. It is helpful,

perhaps, if we start by considering the three great transcendentals and their relationship to one

another.

It was Plato, who first posited a trio of ultimate values for existence. The three transcendentals, known

to us now as truth, goodness, and beauty, are to be pursued apart from any other end than themselves.

It is these three values which are to justify all our actions and rational conclusions. Philosopher Roger

Scruton explains:

Why believe p? Because it is true. Why want x? Because it is good. Why look at y? Because it is

beautiful. In some way, philosophers have argued, those answers are on par: each brings a state

of mind into the ambit of reason, by connecting it to something that it is in our nature, as

rational beings, to pursue. Someone who asked “why believe what is true?” or “why want what

is good?” has failed to understand the nature of reasoning. He doesn’t see that, if we are to

justify our beliefs and desires at all, then our reasons must be anchored in the true and the

good.1

The trascendentals, as ultimate values, are meant to be sufficient explanations for belief and practice.

Our interest in them is what Kant called a “disinterested interest.” We value these things because they

are themselves valuable, not for what they might do for us. We have no other ulterior reason for

affirming the true, the good, and the beautiful than that they are the true, the good, and the beautiful.

Furthermore, these transcendentals are interrelated such that a person cannot neglect the one without

also losing the other two. As Hans Urs von Balthasar has said:

1 Roger Scruton, Beauty: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 2.

8

In a world which is perhaps not wholly without beauty, but which can no longer see it or reckon

with it: in such a world the good also loses its attractiveness, the self-evidence of why it must be

carried out. Man stands before the good and asks himself why it must be done and not rather its

alternative, evil…In a world that no longer has enough confidence in itself to affirm the beautiful,

the proofs of the truth have lost their cogency. In other words, syllogisms may still dutifully

clatter away like rotary presses or computers which infallibly spew out an exact number of

answers by the minute. But the logic of these answers is itself a mechanism which no longer

captivates anyone.2

So, the emphasis of the Christian theologian on the true and the good requires an equal emphasis on

the beautiful. We neglect the beautiful only to our own shame and to the weakening of our theology.

For, in losing the beautiful we lose also the good and the true.

When we talk about these ultimate values, however, we are not merely talking about matters of

axiology. We must begin to see how these relate to matters of ontology too. We may recognize this

more readily in relation to concepts of the true and the good.

Often when scholars speak about the relationship between truth and ontology they have in mind the

correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory argues that the validity of a statement is

dependent on its relation to the world and specifically how accurately it describes that world. So, truth

or falsity may be determined by examining a claim’s correspondence to what is. While rationalists in

general have argued against correspondence theory – since they believe we cannot know reality apart

from our own minds - and while empiricists have perhaps overstated the case for correspondence,

Christians can acknowledge that there is some validity to the correspondence theory.

John Frame explores the theories of epistemic justification by means of a perspectival approach, arguing

that:

…there is a place for correspondence, as there is a place for coherence. Either may be used as a

definition of truth or as a test of truth (they are perspectivally related), as long as they operate

within a framework of a biblical world view. Scripture teaches that through divine revelation, we

do have access to the “real world.” We discover the “real world” not only through sense-

experience but also through rational concepts and subjective states and particularly through

Scripture, our supreme criterion of reality.3

There is a relationship between truth and being. From one perspective, then, the correspondence

theory of truth holds up. Frame continues:

Thus it is not surprising that when we seek the truth, our thought process is very much a kind of

“comparison.” We compare our present idea of truth to that which God is leading us toward

through Scripture and the various elements of our thought process. We never “get outside of”

our own thoughts; the rationalists and subjectivists are right on that account. But God’s

revelation is able to penetrate our thoughts, so that even within our own subjectivity we are not

without divine witness. Thus there is always a process of comparison between our thoughts and

2 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: Seeing the Form. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2009. 19.

3 John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Philipsburg: P&R, 1987. 141

9

what God is showing us – a process of comparison that may be called a “search for

correspondence.”4

Truth, then, corresponds to reality; it has an ontological component to it. We know this from Scripture

as well which speaks of truth as a person, a being: namely Christ (John 14:6).

We may also speak of goodness in terms that move beyond axiology. The ontological component of

goodness can be most evidently seen within medieval theology. The medieval church developed what

has come to be known as perfect-being theology. In this development, perfection is not merely a

characteristic but a person, namely God himself (see Dylan Rowland’s article in this issue for more on

PBT). Because God is perfection He must, therefore, exist. We see again, being and the transcendentals

have an intimate relationship.

Does the same hold for beauty? That is the question at hand. We must considering whether, then, there

is a necessary relationship between ontology and aesthetics. If there is we will need to consider the

implications of ignoring it for our theological work and Christian lives.

Beauty and the Triune God

Beauty is not one of those attributes of God that systematicians frequently highlight. Karl Barth

attempted some work on the beauty of God, but he began by saying that “the beautiful seems to be a

particularly secular [concept], not at all adapted for introduction into the language of theology and

indeed extremely dangerous.”5 Its absence, then, from much theological discussion makes Jonathan

Edwards’ thoughts on beauty exceedingly bold. For Edwards, beauty was deeply essential for

understanding the Divine.

Beauty is “that…wherein the truest idea of divinity consists.” The interrelationship between ontology

and aesthetics, then, is found in the person of God who is both Being and Beauty in His essence.6 Beauty

is grounded in the ontological Trinity. For Edwards this was particularly seen in the concept of

“proportion.”

Proportion

The idea of “proportion” or what others might call “fittingness” is a regularly accepted aspect of beauty.

Roger Scruton speaks of the “fittingness” of a street scene, noting how the obtrusive and gaudy

architecture of one particular building can damage the overall beauty of a street. He writes, even more

interestingly, about the fittingness of a door in a wall.

Suppose you are fitting a door in a wall and marking out the place for the frame. You will step

back from time to time and ask yourself: does that look right? This is a real question, but it is not

a question that can be answered in functional or utilitarian terms. The door-frame may be just

what is needed for the traffic to pass through, it may comply with all requirements of health and

4 Ibid. 142.

5 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1: The Reality of God II. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. 651-52

6 Elaine Scarry notes, “One can see why beauty…has been perceived to be bound up with the immortal, for it

prompts a search for a precedent, which in turn prompts a search for a still earlier precedent, and the mind keeps

tripping backward until it at last reaches something that has no precedent, which may very well be the immortal.”

On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1999. 30.

10

safety, but it may simply not look right: too high, too low, too wide, wrong shape and so

on…Those judgments do not refer us to any utilitarian goal, but they are rational for all that.

They might be the first step in a dialogue, in which comparisons are made, examples urged, and

alternatives discussed. And the subject of this dialogue has something to do with the way things

fit together and a hoped-for harmoniousness in the completion of an ordinary physical task.7

In architecture in particular, then, we see fittingness, “proportion,” is a major determiner of beauty. We

might readily observe the same things of music. Does a song resolve in the right manner, do the notes

harmonize well? Fittingness, then, is an agreed upon measure of beauty. Edwards refers to this as an

“equality or likeness of ratios.”8

For Edwards, “proportion” or “fittingness” is seen most clearly in the spiritual realm, and particularly in

the interrelationship of the Triune God. Writing on this point in Edwards’ theology, McClymond and

McDermott state:

He linked beauty to his distinctive concept of “proportion,” and this meant that beauty involved

internal complexity or diversity. As Edwards expressed it, “one alone, without reference to any

more, cannot be excellent.” So it is also with God, for God’s “infinite beauty is his infinite mutual

love of himself.” Edwards explained: God’s excellence consists in the love of himself…But he

exerts himself towards himself no other way than in infinitely loving and delighting in himself, in

the mutual love of the Father and the Son. This makes the third, the personal Holy Spirit or the

holiness of God, which is his infinite beauty, and this is God’s infinite consent to being in

general.” While all beauty in creatures was by participation in God’s beauty, so all beauty in God

derived from God’s inmost nature and not from any source outside of God.9

Beauty is inherent to the Godhead because of the interrelationship of the three persons of the

Godhead. The “proportion” or “fittingness” of the ontological Trinity is the essence of beauty.

Biblical Support

We ought to test Edwards by the voice of the Scriptures.10

Does beauty correspond to the essence of

God? If we were to look for a simple proof text by which to assert the ontological beauty of God our

efforts would produce no fruit. There is no single text that asserts “God is beauty,” in the same way that

we find a text saying plainly “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). There are a few verses that speak of the

“beauty of the Lord” (Ps. 27:4; 90:17), and other verses point to the “beauty of holiness” (1 Chron.

7 Scruton, 69.

8 Readers should not misinterpret this evaluative marker of beauty as simply a conformity to culturally agreed

upon rules. Scruton points out that mere conformity to rules cultivates dullness. “Bach’s Forty-Eight illustrates all

the rules of fugal composition: but they do so by obeying them creatively, by showing how they can be used as a

platform from which to rise to a higher realm of freedom” (120). 9 Michael McClymond and Gerald McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford UP,

2012.96. 10

It should be pointed out that Edwards is not my authority on these things, merely one who echoes my

own sentiments and the sentiments of the Scriptures and sound theology. Edwards was not Biblical on

every point concerning his doctrine of the trinity. In particular his view of the Holy Spirit as the result of the

Father’s love for the Son makes the Spirit seem more like an impersonal force than a person of the

Godhead. I think he is wrong on this point.

11

16:29; 2 Chron. 20:21; Ps. 29:2), but none of these passages give us much in the way of a fully developed

theological aesthetic. Yet, the Bible clearly reveals that God has aesthetic interests.

Take, for example, the detailed description of the construction and design of the temple. The

description of the temple’s construction is not dominated merely by functional concerns; it was

designed to be a beautiful place. In just one portion of the description of the temple’s construction in 1

Kings 6 we read:

14 So Solomon built the house and finished it.

15 He lined the walls of the house on the inside

with boards of cedar. From the floor of the house to the walls of the ceiling, he covered them on

the inside with wood, and he covered the floor of the house with boards of cypress. 16

He built

twenty cubits of the rear of the house with boards of cedar from the floor to the walls, and he

built this within as an inner sanctuary, as the Most Holy Place. 17

The house, that is, the nave in

front of the inner sanctuary, was forty cubits long. 18

The cedar within the house was carved in

the form of gourds and open flowers. All was cedar; no stone was seen. 19

The inner sanctuary

he prepared in the innermost part of the house, to set there the ark of the covenant of

the LORD. 20

The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and twenty cubits

high, and he overlaid it with pure gold. He also overlaid an altar of cedar. 21

And Solomon

overlaid the inside of the house with pure gold, and he drew chains of gold across, in front of

the inner sanctuary, and overlaid it with gold. 22

And he overlaid the whole house with gold, until

all the house was finished. Also the whole altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary he overlaid

with gold. (1 Kings 6:14-22)

The intricate artwork of the carved flowers (v. 18), and the overlaying of gold do not serve a utilitarian

purpose, they are designed for beauty. They are meant to remind the worshiper of the Garden of Eden

and of the Kingdom of God. They have no functional service, but are poetic in nature. And the beauty

embedded into the temple was meant to be an image of the beauty of the heavenly temple, the very

throne room of God. It connected heaven and earth (1 Kings 8:27-30).

Furthermore, the creation of the world itself, and God’s concern with craftsmanship and human art (Ex.

31:1-11), reveals the aesthetic interests of the Creator. God is for beauty, and all our beauty and the

beauty we make is analogous to God’s beauty. His is the norm for all of ours. When we say of something

in the world, say the pink and orange glow of the setting sun, “that is beautiful,” we are making a

judgment rooted in the beauty of God. If God is the creator of all things, and if beauty is real, then

beauty must be rooted in the person of God.

Besides his aesthetic interests, however, we might look to the notion of the glory of God for more

Biblical support on divine beauty. Many theologians rightly assert that what we mean by the term

“glory” is in fact “beauty.” While Barth is reluctant to explore the glory of God from the precise element

of beauty, he nonetheless acknowledges that it may serve as a legitimate description.11

Likewise,

Herman Bavinck, while asserting that “it is not advisable to speak…of God’s beauty,” nonetheless

asserted that “for the beauty of God Scripture has a special word: glory.”12

Several Hebrew and Greek

words translate to communicate the connection between glory and beauty: splendor, delightful, and

lovely. There is an imbedded idea of desirability in the beauty of God. The Scriptures expound more

readily on this idea than on the simple term beauty.

11

Barth, 220. 12

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. 254.

12

A few passages may be cited to demonstrate the point:

Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering and come before him! Worship

the LORD in the splendor of holiness (1 Chron. 16:29)

Worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness; tremble before him, all the earth! (Ps. 96:9)

The “splendor of holiness” is another way of saying the beauty or desirability of his holiness. Ascribing

glory is to assert that God is love-worthy, He is beautiful (see also Psalm 29:2). In Ezekiel 16 the Lord

asserts that the nations call his people beautiful because of the “splendor” (beauty) that He gave them.

We read:

And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect

through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord GOD. (Ezek. 16:14)

Beauty is part of the essence of God. We have it because He gives it to us. The Scriptures reinforce this

through reference to God’s “splendor” and the delight His people take in Him. God’s beauty is that

attribute of God’s glory which attracts us to Him and compels us to desire Him.13

In other words, God, in

his very being, is beauty.

Conclusion

There’s significantly more that can be said regarding the attribute of beauty as found in the ontological

trinity. The point at hand, however, is that aesthetics do have a relationship to ontology, not unlike the

other two transcendentals. It is part of the very essence of being in the divine Godhead. Beauty, then,

helps us understand reality because it is part of the God who created this reality and imbued it with the

beautiful. We must turn, then, to consider how beauty helps us to understand the world in specific

ways.

Beauty and the World

The contention of this paper has been that beauty helps us to understand existence. We have seen how

the Triune God grounds this assertion in His own being. The ontological nature of beauty is confirmed by

the simplicity of the beautiful God.14

Now we must apply this to the world in which we live and move.

How exactly does beauty help us to understand existence? We will utilize three subjects as theological

case studies for our thesis: the natural world, the self, and the other.

13

Other theologians have noted this as well. Jonathan Edwards certainly did when he asserted that “God is glorified

not only by His glory’s being seen, but by its being rejoiced in,” The End For Which God Created the World. Barth

said, “If we can and must say that God is beautiful, to say this is to say how He enlightens and convinces and

persuades us. It is to ascribe not merely the naked fact of His revelation and its power, but the shape and form in

which it is a fact and power. It is to say that God has this superior force, this power of attraction, which speaks for

itself, which wins and conquers, in the fact that He is beautiful, divinely beautiful, beautiful in His own way, in a

way that is His alone, beautiful as the unattainable primal beauty, yet really beautiful,” Church Dogmatics II.I, 220.

Even Wayne Grudem has remarked saying that “God’s beauty is that attribute of God whereby he is the sum of all

desirable qualities” Systematic Theology, 219. 14

Divine simplicity is the term used to assert that God does not possess an attribute, but rather is in His

essence these attributes. Adonis Vidu writes, “the being of God is utterly different from any other kind of

being. In particular, divine attributes are identical to his being rather than components of it,” in Atonement,

Law, and Justice. 240.

13

The Natural World

Contemporary Evangelicals are not noted for their environmentalism. Man’s relation to the world,

marred as it is by sin, is often reduced to what the world can give him. So, we are interested in natural

resources, and how to exploit such resources for our maximal benefit. The earth is a thing to be used

and often, sadly, abused. Or, perhaps our interest in the world is a bit more metaphysical. We look at

the world and ask questions about how it came to be, or why it exists, but the sheer fact of its existence

– the “that” of existence - has no meaning to us. Beauty urges us to something better, to value the

natural world.

Our theology ought to inform our beliefs about the natural world, and for many Christians their

ecological theology starts with Genesis 3. So the world is fallen, corrupt, and broken. As such it is simply

groaning and waiting for the revealing of the sons of God (Rom. 8:18-25), and there is nothing we can do

about this. The world is headed for destruction and our job, as Christians, is merely to fill the lifeboats

before the whole ship sinks. Other Christians don’t even have this Biblical concept as the foundation for

their relation to nature. Their influences are purely Platonic. Nature is bad, the corporeal is a prison. All

that matters is the soul of man, the spiritual. But the beauty of the world urges upon us deeper

considerations of its ontology. It speaks to us even of its remaining goodness and of meaningfulness.

Our ecological theology, and from that our ecological responsibility, ought to start in Genesis 1 and

move forward. For in Genesis 1 we find that the world, as God originally made it, is “very good.”

Certainly the fall has marred some of that goodness, and brokenness has entered this sphere of

existence. Yet God’s care for creation has not terminated post Genesis 3. His redemption of man is

pointing towards the restoration of earth too. Even in the Noahic Covenant we find that God covenants

not simply with the man, but with the whole earth. In Genesis 9 we read:

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him,

9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you

and your offspring after you, 10

and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the

livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every

beast of the earth. (v. 8-10)

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every

living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13

I have set my bow in the cloud, and

it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. (v. 12-13)

We note God’s specific language about the creatures and “the earth.” “God is interested in creation,”

Francis Schaeffer rightly asserted, “He does not despise it.”15

In particular the continuing appearance of

beauty reminds us of the ontological value of nature.

Beauty begins by telling us that the world is not merely a thing to be used, but a thing to behold. We

look at the sunset, a beautiful flower, the majestic waterfall, the twinkling stars, and more and see

glories. We see glimpses of God’s original intent still residing in the natural world. This beholding is,

itself, significant. For beholding the beauty of the world helps us to make sense of existence. Roger

Scruton believes that beholding the world allows us to sense its fittingness and orderliness. The world,

of course, is not perfectly ordered and fitting. The fall has made nature “red in tooth and claw.” Yet

15

Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man. In The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer. Vol. 5.

Westchester: Crossway, 1982. 36.

14

there is real beauty and when we take the time to see it we are harkened back to a pre-fallen world. We

are reminded of the value of existence.

What we often experience is the meaninglessness of life. We experience the betrayal of friends, the

absence of loved ones, the emptiness of stomachs. We see children get cancer, spiritual leaders who

cheat on their wives, and hurricanes that destroy towns. But the glimpse of real beauty reminds us there

is meaning, there is significance to life. Scruton writes:

From the earliest drawings in the Lascaux caves to the landscapes of Cezanne, the poems of

Guido Gezelle and the music of Messiaen, art has searched for meaning in the natural world.

The experience of natural beauty is not a sense of “how nice!” or “how pleasant!” It contains a

reassurance that this world is a right and fitting place to be – a home in which our human

powers and prospects find confirmation…When you pause to study the perfect form of a

wildflower or the blended feathers of a bird, you experience an enhanced sense of belonging. A

world that makes room for such things, makes room for you…It is as though the natural world,

represented in consciousness, justifies both itself and you. And this experience has a

metaphysical resonance.16

The beauty of the world helps us to reestablish the true value of existence. We exist because of God’s

original intent. We need beauty for this.

This means too that beauty drives us to take better care of the world. Beauty drives our ecological

responsibility. If the experience of beauty helps to validate our existence then we ought to strive for

beauty. We ought even to work towards the temporal healing of the earth, as Schaeffer argued. We

know its full healing will only come with the New Earth (Rev. 21:1), but we can work for some “real and

evident” healing now.17

If Paul, in Romans 6 applies the principle of our future redemption to “our

present situation” then we can follow him in doing the same for the earth. Beauty compels us to

preservation, conservation, and healing.18

The Self

Aesthetic judgments also play a role in self-knowledge, as we ascertain the ways in which we fit within

culture. Nature plays its part, but so do our own conscious and unconscious choices. We can sense this

most notably in the word “style.” We communicate something of ourselves through our fashion, our

home decor, and through our general manner of life. Each of the aesthetic choices we make about the

way we live help to communicate both to others and to ourselves how we fit in the world.

16

Scruton, 55. 17

Schaeffer, 39. 18

Schaeffer tells a sad story that reveals just how little the Christian church cares for the beauty of the earth. He

writes of visiting a hippie commune in California. Schaeffer tells of talking to this pagan man and then looking

across the ravine at a Christian school and he writes: Having shown me all this, he looked across to the Christian

school and said to me, “look at that; isn’t that ugly?” And it was! I could not deny it. It was an ugly building,

without even trees around it. It was then that I realized what a poor situation this was. When I stood on Christian

ground and looked at the Bohemian people’s place, it was beautiful. They had even gone to the trouble of running

their electricity cables under the level of the trees so that they couldn’t be seen. Then I stood on pagan ground and

looked at the Christian community and saw ugliness. Here you have a Christianity that is failing to take into

account man’s responsibility and proper relationship to nature. (24)

15

Scruton gives an interesting example: a table setting. There is a jug full of wine in the center of the table.

What do we make of this? Why is there wine there? Why is it in a jug? Why in the center of the table?

These simple, even routine choices of a hostess, place her in a certain context. Scruton notes:

The jug alludes to a certain form of life: a Mediterranean life in which rough wine is in plentiful

supply, and in frictionless relation to both work and play. That is why the hostess chose a jug of

naively decorated earthenware, and why she put it in the middle of the table, signifying the

easy-going use of it in which we help ourselves.19

The aesthetic choices signify something. We more readily recognize this in the use of fashion. What we

wear, whether intended or not, communicates something of ourselves. The choices we make about the

shoes we wear and the jewelry that accompanies an evening gown all intend to communicate

something of ourselves.

We may do this with precise intentionality or we may do it simply out of habit, but all our aesthetic

choices matter. Beauty reveals us to ourselves and to others. With regard to our fictional hostess,

Scruton writes:

These may not be conscious choices. The hostess is herself discovering, in the aesthetic endeavor,

the meaning that she wishes to convey. The example suggests indeed a role for aesthetic choices

in promoting self-knowledge – in coming to understand how you yourself fit in to the world of

human meanings.20

These every day choices about beauty that we make in real life significantly impact the way we

understand ourselves.

Furthermore, beauty plays a vital role in the formation of character. Previous generations of

“gentlemen” knew this. Writing in Crisis Magazine, Jared Silvey says:

Once upon a time in the Western world, exposure to “the beautiful” was an important element in

the development and formation of men. The ideal man was also an educated man, and an

educated man knew something about, and appreciated, good art, good music, good literature,

and good taste (and perhaps also good wine). The Romantics of the nineteenth century added to

this resume a man who had the capacity to be intoxicated by the beauty of nature. Many of the

great works of art and music of that time period reflect this.21

Beauty has long had a role in character development and education.

Silvey notes several particular ways that it plays a shaping role. For starters, it directs “the male drive to

aggression and fighting to a worthy end.” The beautiful directs a man to fight for whatever is good and

true, he argues.22

“Beauty also teaches men to appreciate the being of things,” he says, “rather than

merely their utility.” Silvey writes:

19

Scruton, 77. 20

Ibid. 21

Jared Silvey, “The Role of Beauty in the Formation of Men as Men.” Crisis Magazine. Dec.18, 2004.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/role-beauty-formation-men-men . Accessed 8/27/2015. 22

Note how often the three transcendentals are assumed as interrelated in popular scholarship. I think

this is right.

16

A man who has been pierced by the beauty of his bride will die for her not because his death will

be of any practical use to himself, but because through her beauty (not just physical but also

personal and spiritual) he has seen through a window to her intrinsic value and to the fact that

she is worth dying for simply because she exists and is who she is.23

Beauty helps men to behold. Finally, Silvey believes that beauty connects us to the spiritual. It moves us

to see beyond this moment and this life. When beauty is understood within the ontological reality of the

character of God then this makes sense.

Beauty is essential to understanding reality. It helps us not simply understand our world, but to

understand ourselves and our place in that world. Without it we lose something significant and

influential to our lives.

The Other

It’s perhaps in the area of the other person that beauty gives us the most help. For the ontological

reality of beauty helps us to value and love those not like us (see Kyle Cayton’s article in this issue on

“Ontology and the Other”). There are a number of ways in which aesthetics actually motivates ethics.

This relationship has been perceived and discussed throughout the history of philosophy. Elaine Scarry

notes:

Plato’s requirement that we move from “eros,” in which we are seized by the beauty of one

person, to “caritas,” in which our care is extended to all people, has parallels in many early

aesthetic treatises, as when Beothius is counseled by Lady Philosophy, and later, Dante is

counseled by Virgil to listen only to a song whose sensory surface will let one move beyond its

own compelling features to a more capacious sphere of objects. The metaphysical plane behind

the face or song provided the moral urgency for insisting upon this movement away from the

particular to the distributional…24

The truly beautiful, it has been argued, prompts us to move beyond a singular experience of beauty to

the overall greater good. In particular, Scarry suggests that the relationship between justice and beauty

is actually rooted in their notions of “fairness,” “equality,” or what we might call “proportion.”

One of the most emphasized qualities of beauty is “symmetry,” she says. This same quality is at play in

the realm of justice, especially as we think about concepts such as “fairness.” In particular, she says,

“equality is set forth as the thing of all things to be aspired to” (98). This relationship between beauty

and justice is more than just an analogous relationship. For in seasons prior to the composition of legal

codes and systems, beauty remained and this symmetry in beauty calls for a symmetry in justice. Add to

this the reality that the laws are not manifestly apparent to us at all times. Beauty, however, is always

apparent and it, once again, points us to justice. Symmetry in one calls for symmetry in the other.

We see too how beauty can help us to give due, or fitting, respect to others. We can see this particularly

by a brief exploration of the difference between beauty and pornography. It has long been documented

that pornography shapes the mind, it influences, in particular, the way men relate to women.25

23

Ibid. 24

Scarry, 81-82. 25

William Struthers, Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain. Downers Grove: IVP, 2010.

17

The long-term exposure to graphic imagery lends itself to the devaluing of women. They are no longer

viewed as people but as things, objects to be used and abused. This occurs not simply because of the

way women are treated in pornographic images and videos, though that is no small thing. The devaluing

of human life happens also because those who indulge in porn have lost a sense of beauty.

Sean Fitzpatrick has seen this happen particularly among the young boys at the boarding school he

oversees. He suggests that the loss of beauty is a significant loss. He writes:

Pornography, and the accessibility of pornography, cheapens the most hallowed of domains to a young

mind and can render any object of beauty a dubious and dirty thing, nothing to take seriously, nothing to

respect, and nothing to be in awe of.26

In this case pornography takes what is beautiful, sex or the female form, and turns it on its head. It

degrades and devalues it. It morphs it in the mind of the long-term user. Porn desensitizes boys “to

beauty, robbing boys of their innocence through the elimination of the mysteries of the heart, severely

impairing their ability to be awed or find pleasure in the beautiful.” Beauty is directly impacts the role of

the other in our world. When we lose a sense of this beauty we lose a solid foundation for caring for and

respecting others. Beauty compels us to justice for others.

The relationship beauty and the “other” is more pronounced when we consider the ways in which

beauty “decenters” us. We constantly live as though we are the center of the world, and this selfishness

restricts our ability to love and care well for others. It hinders our justice and compassion. But when we

are confronted with something truly beautiful it moves us from the center of our world. As Scarry says:

At the moment we see something beautiful, we undergo a radical decentering. Beauty,

according to Weil, requires us “to give up our imaginary position as the center…A transformation

then takes place at the very roots for our sensibility, in our immediate reception of sense

impressions and psychological impressions.”27

With poetic beauty Scarry describes this decentering, suggesting that beautiful things act “like small

tears in the surface of the world that pull us through to some vaster space, or they form ‘ladders

reaching toward the beauty of the world…’” Ultimately, in the face of beauty we “willingly cede our

ground to the thing that stands before us.”28

This “radical decentering” pulls us out of ourselves and

opens before us the rest of the world. Beauty prompts us to give up our selfishness and in those

moments we are prepared to see rightly our place in the world and rightly the place of others in the

world. We need beauty to understand others.

Conclusion

At one level all that we have said about beauty’s relation to the world can be summed up in that same

concept of “fittingness” or “proportion.” Beauty in the natural world screams to us about God’s original

design of order, and thus helps us to understand existence in light of His intent. Beauty helps us to

understand ourselves rightly and to diagnose our place in this world. Beauty shapes our character and

the aesthetic choices we make highlight that character to others. Beauty, finally, communicates to us

26

Sean Fitzpatrick, “Boys, Porn, and Education,” in Crisis Magazine. October 31, 2014.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/boys-porn-education. Accessed 9/2/2015. 27

Scarry, 111. 28

Ibid. 112.

18

that we are not the center of the world and that other people have value and deserve our respect and

love and care. In each case, beauty is the means of communicating to us how the world fits together

under God’s design. We need beauty.

The neglect of beauty in theological work is significant. It leaves gaping holes in our understanding of

God, our understanding of ourselves, and our understanding of the world. Without it we cannot rightly

understand existence.

David R. Dunham is Associate Pastor of Discipleship and Counseling at Cornerstone Baptist Church. He

has a Masters of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

19

Bibliography

Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian Rosner, D.A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy (eds.). New Dictionary of

Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics II.1: The Reality of God II. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (eds.). New

York: T&T Clark, 2010.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. vol. 2. John Bolt (ed.). John Vriend (trans.).Grand Rapids:

Baker, 2004.

Frame, John. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002.

__________. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg: P&R, 1987.

Fitzpatrick, Sean. “Boys, Porn, and Education,” in Crisis Magazine. October 31, 2014.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/boys-porn-education.

Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology. vol. 2. Minneapolis: Bethany, 2003.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

McClymond, Michael and Gerald McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford

UP, 2012.

Schaeffer, Francis. Pollution and the Death of Man. The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer. Vol. 5.

Westchester: Crossway, 1982.

Scarry, Elaine. On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1999.

Scruton, Roger. Beauty: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford UP, 2011.

Silvey, Jared. “The Role of Beauty in the Formation of Men as Men.” Crisis Magazine. Dec.18, 2004.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/role-beauty-formation-men-men . Accessed 8/27/2015.

Strachan, Owen and Douglas Sweeney. Jonathan Edwards on Beauty. Chicago: Moody, 2010.

von Balthasar, Hans Urs. The Glory of the Lord, vol. 1: Seeing the Form. San Francisco: Ignatius. 2009.

St. anselm’s ontological arugment: limitations and value

20

ST. ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARUGMENT: LIMITATIONS AND VALUE

St. Anselm (1033-1109), the archbishop of Canterbury, is famously known for composing influential

works of theology and philosophy during the medieval time period. Of his many writings,29

the content

of Anselm’s Proslogion has been at the forefront of much debate concerning the nature and existence of

God. The “ontological argument for God’s existence”, as it has come to be known, is historically

attributed to Anselm. In it he seeks to prove God’s existence by appealing to the very definition of who

God is. And so, given the intriguing nature of such an argument, it is my intention to spend the

remaining space describing and dissecting components Anselm’s ontological argument. I will argue that

while Anselm’s ontological argument possesses serious limitations, it is nevertheless a valuable

contribution to the history of Christian thought. Thus, in what follows, readers should expect to gain a

basic understanding of what Anselm’s argument entails, along with a very brief history of how thinkers

have responded to Anselm’s formulation. Furthermore, two sections dealing with the limitations and

value of the ontological argument will be developed, followed by concluding remarks.

The Nature of Anselm’s Ontological Argument and its Historical Influence

In order to understand Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence, one must comprehend why

he desired to conceptualize it in the first place. Prior to writing his Proslogion, Anselm composed

another work entitled, Monologion, which contained other theological and philosophical proofs for

God’s existence. For example, this work houses versions of the cosmological argument and an argument

from the existence of goodness to the existence of a supreme good.30

This previous writing, Anselm

testifies, was a meditation upon the meaning of the Christian faith from the perspective of an

unbeliever, “Seeking, throughout silent reasoning within himself, things he knows not.” However,

Anselm reflects:

I began to wonder if perhaps it might be possible to find one single argument that for its proof

required no other save itself, and that by itself would suffice to prove that God really exists, that

He is the supreme good needing no other and is He whom all things have need of for their being

and well-being, and also to prove whatever we believe about the Divine Being.31

In not being totally satisfied with the content of his Monologion, Anselm begins the process of mentally

investigating the potential of providing one essential argument that would prove God’s existence

without a doubt. In seeking to formulate such an argument for God’s existence, Anselm admits that his

task was daunting and believed to be nearly impossible. However, and according to Anselm, at the

eleventh hour when complete desperation had come, “It began to force itself upon me more and more

pressingly.”32

Finally, the argument Anselm was desperately seeking to express began to take shape in

his mind. Differing from the perspective in his Monologion, this particular proof would be constructed

29

Anselm, Anselm of Canterbury The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies and G.R. Evans, (New York: Oxford University

Press, 2008). 30

Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 17. 31

Anselm, 82. 32

Ibid., 82-83.

21

from the standpoint of, “One trying to raise his mind to contemplate God and seeking to understand

what he believes.”33

Thus, Anselm’s ontological proof is presented to readers in the form of a Christian

prayer of profound devotion.

The second chapter of the Proslogion begins the ontological argument proper as Anselm contends that

God is, “That-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.” This is to suggest, Anselm argues, that God

is the greatest conceivable being; no being greater than God can be thought about. According to

Anselm, given the idea of God, God then exists in the understanding since one is able to understand the

concept that God is That-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. However, if God only exists in

one’s understanding, a being greater could be thought about; namely, a being that exists in both

thought and reality. The being that exists in both thought and reality is greater than the one who exists

in thought alone. Thus, if God is indeed That-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought, He then exists

in thought and in reality. Hence, God exists.34

It is important to note that Anselm formulates his argument based on the notion of “perfect being

theology.”35

Colin Brown correctly describes that Anselm articulated a logical demonstration of God’s

existence and that, “His argument is usually thought of as an attempt to deduce the existence of God

from this idea of the most perfect being.”36

In Anselm’s mind, given that God possesses the attribute of

perfection, this necessarily entails His existence. If God does not exist, then He is not That-than-which-

nothing-greater-can-be-thought. John Frame, in his section on Anselm’s ontological argument, provides

a helpful syllogism to visualize the thrust of Anselm’s argument. It is as follows:

Premise 1: God has all perfections.37

Premise 2: Existence is a perfection.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.38

And so, Anselm derives the conclusion that God exists based on his understanding that God is That-than-

which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought, which entails God’s perfection and therefore His existence.

In concluding this brief introduction, and to prepare for the next sections which include the limitations

and value of Anselm’s argument, a brief history of how other thinkers have responded to Anselm’s proof

will be of benefit. Of the greatest philosophical and theological minds throughout the centuries, many

have despised Anselm’s argument while others have honored it. According to Frame, Parmenides, Plato,

and Augustine all used reasoning that prefigures Anselm’s formulation in some ways. As will be

demonstrated below, elements of Plato’s influence are evident within Anselm’s formulation of the

ontological argument. Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas rejected it, but Renee Descartes, Baruch Spinoza,

and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz all accepted versions of it. Jonathan Edwards, the great Puritan theologian

of the Great Awakening, employed a Parmenidean form of the ontological argument. Perhaps, however,

one of the most formidable critiques of Anselm’s proof came from Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth

33

Ibid. 83. 34

Blackburn, 259. 35

For more a detailed discussion of perfect being theology, see William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, Philosophical

Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 501-516. 36

Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1968), 20. 37

Or: “That-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.” 38

John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994), 115.

22

century. Finally, the ontological argument has been rejected by many modern scholars such as G.E.

Moore, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sarte, and Anthony Flew. However, there are numerous modern

thinkers who advocate versions of the proof as well. Scholars such as: Norman Malcom, Alvin Plantinga,

Nicholas Rescher, and Charles Hartshorne all have advocated versions of the ontological argument.39

The point in stating this brief history is to demonstrate how important and influential the ontological

argument really is. Given the numerous scholars whom have rejected or accepted the proof, there is

clearly much to consider. This demonstrates the importance of Anselm’s thinking on the matter. His

ontological argument is a serious piece of philosophical theology that deserves attention, no matter if

one accepts it or rejects it.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument: Limitations and Value

Given the basic summary of Anselm’s ontological argument above, it is necessary to begin discussing the

limitations and value associated with such a proof. As stated in the introduction of this article, while

Anselm’s formulation possesses limitations, his proof is a valuable work of Christian thinking in this

history of Christian thought. The following is a description of its limitations and value.

Limitations of Anselm’s Ontological Argument

For the sake of space, only two limitations will be reviewed. The first limitation centers on Anselm’s

understanding of perfection as an attribute of God. The second limitation, by necessary implication of

the first, will address the extent to which Anselm’s proof operates as a convincing work of natural

theology. Let the reader understand, however, that while Anselm’s ontological argument possesses

serious limitations, recognizing its limitations should not be confused with arguments for its rejection.

Rather, its limitations should promote a healthier view of Christian reflection on the matter.

First, Anselm’s formulation depends on God’s perfection for its logical consistency. Recall, if God

possesses all perfections, and if existence is a perfection, it then is logically necessary that God exists.

However, one major limitation for Anselm’s argument is that it depends on a specific understanding of

God’s perfection. Frame correctly concludes that Anselm’s understanding of perfection, “Presupposes

an already known system of values.”40

Said another way; from a Christian perspective, the meaning that

Anselm ascribes to perfection may not carry the same meaning for someone operating from a non-

Christian worldview. For example, to maintain that God’s perfection necessitates His existence, as

Anselm does, is not in agreement with a Buddhist’s conception of perfection where perfection might be

explained as a form of “nothingness,” and therefore non-existence. The ontological argument proves

the biblical God only if it presupposes distinctively Christian values and a Christian view of existence. If

one begins with a set of values distinct from that of Christianity, the concept of perfection changes. This

explains why the ontological argument has historically been used by thinkers with different conceptions

of God: polytheistic (Plato), pantheistic (Parmenides, Spinoza, Hegel), process (Hartshorne), monadic

39

Ibid., 114-115. 40

Frame, 116. In other words, Anselm already presupposes a certain system within which his argument is

developed; namely, the Christian view of God.

23

(Leibniz), and Christian (Anselm, Plantinga). 41

Therefore, one must be aware of Anselm’s theological

commitments to the idea of God’s perfection when invoking this proof, as it presupposes a certain

meaning that those outside of the Christian worldview do not share.

The first limitation, then, necessarily implies the second. Given Anselm’s Christian understanding of

perfection, Anselm’s argument, as formulated in the Proslogion, cannot therefore be used as a work of

natural theology in the traditional sense. To explain what is here meant by natural theology, see the

following description by Charles Taliaferro:

Natural theology is the practice of philosophically reflecting on the existence and nature of God

independent of real or apparent divine revelation or Scripture. Traditionally, natural theology

involves weighing arguments for and against God’s existence, and it is contrasted with revealed

theology, which may be carried out within the context of ostensible revelation or scripture.42

According to Taliaferro’s definition of natural theology, arguments for and against the existence of God

are advocated assuming that neutral common ground between a believer and a non-believer is

epistemologically possible. 43

William Lane Craig contends that when a Christian is offering evidence to

demonstrate the reasonableness of belief in God, the, “Reflective Christian should do whatever seems

feasible to search for common ground on which to adjudicate the crucial differences between

competing views.” Craig goes on to say that by:

Proceeding on the basis of considerations that are common to all parties, such as sense

perception, rational self-evidence, and common modes of reasoning, the Christian can show that

his own beliefs are true and those of his interlocutor false, then he will have succeeded in showing

that the Christian is in a superior epistemic position for discerning the truth about these matters.44

And so, proofs for God’s existence, such as the various cosmological and teleological arguments for

example, have been developed within this tradition of natural theology. Historically, arguments of

natural theology can be compatible within any theistic system; even those which are not distinctively

Christian.45

Proofs of natural theology, therefore, do not necessarily presuppose a uniquely Christian

worldview in their formulation for the sake of neutral common ground.

41

Ibid., 117. 42

Charles Taliaferro, "The Project Of Natural Theology," in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed.

William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 1. 43

In this context, neutral common ground refers to the notion that a Christian and a non-Christian are able to

objectively agree on the foundational principles necessary for obtaining knowledge. So, things such as sense

perception, rational self-evidence, and other common modes of reasoning are assumed epistemologically equal for

Christian and non-Christian alike. See below quote from William Lane Craig. 44

William Lane Craig, "Classical Apologetics," in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Seven B.

Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 44. 45

For example, William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument is a specific type of cosmological argument

developed from an Islamic context. See the entry on Kalam in Balckburn, 197.

24

All of this is to note that the ontological argument for God’s existence has been used by thinkers which

do not necessarily assume, what many would call, an orthodox Christian worldview;46

Anselm’s version,

however, clearly does. Those, whom wish to take up the task of natural theology, cannot appeal to

Anselm’s version of the ontological argument without first modifying its clear Christian presupposition.

The problem, as Paul Feinberg states, is that, “The argument has a premise that the non-theist will not

accept as true.”47

In other words, if a non-Christian does not accept the conclusion that God’s exists as

Anselm understands it, the non-Christian will not then accept the premise that God is That-than-which-

nothing-greater-can-be-thought. Thus, in order to employ Anselm’s ontological argument, as articulated

by him in the Proslogion, one must be prepared to argue from a distinctively Christian set of

assumptions. This is why Anselm’s formulation of the ontological argument cannot be used as a work of

natural theology without it first being modified.

Value of Anselm’s Ontological Argument

While there are some evident limitations to Anselm’s formulation of the ontological argument, there are

also aspects of his proof that are of value for the Christian. Specifically, there are two characteristics that

make Anselm’s insight valuable. The first centers on the presuppositional nature of Anselm’s argument

from God’s perfection. The second focuses on the devotional center of Anselm’s proof that is often lost

in philosophic discourse. Together, both aspects maintain an immense value for the Christian thinker.

Beginning with the presuppositional nature of Anselm’s ontological argument, note first that,

historically, Anselm is known for operating under the influence of Platonic philosophy48

. As Donald

Palmer contends:

Take note of how very Platonic Anselm’s argument is. First, it is purely a priori—that is, it makes

no appeal whatsoever to sensorial observation; it appeals exclusively to pure reason. Second, it

makes explicit the Platonic view that the “most perfect” equals “the most real.”49

Plato is famous for constructing a worldview around the notion, of what he calls, the world of the

Forms. The Forms, Blackburn describes, “Are independent, real, divine, invisible, and changeless; they

share features of the things of which they are the form, but also cause them.”50

This is to say, any

mental concept that one has of something corresponds to the Form of that concept. For example, things

in the physical world which are described as beautiful, in Platonic thought, are only beautiful to the

extent that they imitate or participate in the Form of beauty which is eternal. According to Palmer, these

beautiful things in the physical world will break, grow old, or die, but beauty itself (the Form) is eternal.

46

Here, “orthodox Christian worldview” refers to what the Christian church has always believed to be true about

its faith according to the creeds and councils of the early church, and also including the many confessions of the

Reformation such as: Westminster Confession of Faith, The London Baptist Confession of Faith, etc. See, for

example, formulations provided by Charles Hartshorne; a process theologian. See section addressing the first

limitation above. 47

Paul D. Feinberg, "Cumulative Case Apologetics," in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Steven

B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 148. 48

Platonic philosophy is that specific philosophical worldview that was developed by the Philosophy Plato. 49

Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy, 5th ed (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 126. 50

Blackburn, 278.

25

In other words, in the same way that shadows and reflections are merely images of particular things, so

theories or concepts are the shadows of the Forms.51

And so, for Plato, true knowledge happens when

one calls to mind,52

through ideas and concepts, the Forms.53

The point to gather from this is that Plato

believed that our mental concepts corresponded to objective reality; namely, the world of the Forms.

In the same way, some have objected that Anselm’s ontological argument makes the same sort of

Platonic jump from concept to reality. Thus, many reject the notion that one can make a jump from

concept to reality and have therefore rejected Anselm’s proof. However, in response to this objection,

the question of whether or not any human concepts correspond to objective reality must be asked.

Frame accurately concludes that in order to avoid complete skepticism, at least some mental concepts

must correspond to reality; specifically, those which presuppose an ultimate criteria which makes

obtaining knowledge possible. Christians, along with Anselm, believe that ultimate criteria to be the God

of Christian theism (1 Cor 1:24, 30; 2:6, 7; Col 2:3). Thus, Anselm’s argument, given his theological

assumptions, correctly argues from concept to reality. Furthermore, Anselm’s motivation for writing is

fueled by the idea of “faith seeking understanding.” Anselm concludes:

But I do desire to understand Your truth a little, that truth that my heart believes and loves. For I

do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand. For I

believe this also, that ‘unless I believe, I shall not understand’ [Isa. 7:9].54

Already convinced of the reality of God from the Scriptures, Anselm offers his ontological argument

assuming a Christian knowledge of God. Anselm’s argument, then, is not an attempt to formulate an

argument so that he may come to know God, but is rather an argument that begins with faith in

Christian theism so that he may obtain a better understanding of God. Reflecting on Karl Barth’s

commentary of Anselm’s Proslogion, Brown states that:

Karl Barth has argued . . . that Anselm’s point was not to prove the existence of God by reason

alone without any appeal to experience and the Christian revelation. His argument was intended

to show that we cannot rationally deny the living God once we know who he is—the most perfect

being.55

Anselm’s conclusion, then, is based on the theological convictions of Christian revelation; that God is

That-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. Therefore, Christians ought to see value in the type of

reasoning that Anselm is doing. Reflecting on the theological and philosophical truths of God is only

accurately done assuming Christian presuppositions.

The second characteristic of value from Anselm’s proof is simply the devotional nature of his writing and

its implications for academic endeavors for the Christian. Interestingly, Anselm’s Proslogion would be

the catalyst for many academic undertakings through the centuries in either endorsing or rejecting the

51

Palmer, 70-71. 52

Plato uses the term recollection to describe this phenomenon. 53

For example, we all know what a triangle is when we think about it, though we have not necessarily experienced

a “perfect” triangle. A triangle is what it is by its definition alone. Plato would argue that when we think of a

triangle, we understand what a triangle is because we are calling to mind the Form of that triangle. 54

Anselm, 87. 55

Brown, 22.

26

ontological argument; yet Anselm formulated his argument within the confines of a prayer. Consider

Anselm’s language:

Come now, insignificant man, fly for a moment from your affairs, escape for a little while from the

tumult of your thoughts. Put aside now your weighty cares and leave your wearisome toils.

Abandon yourself for a little to God and rest for a little in Him. Enter into the inner chamber of

your soul, shut out everything save God and what can be of help in your quest for Him and having

locked the door seek Him out [Matt. 6:6]. Speak now, my whole heart, speak now to God: ‘I seek

your countenance, O Lord, Your countenance I seek’ [Ps. 26:8].56

The entire first chapter of Anselm’s Proslogion is devoted to preparing his mind for active contemplation

on the magnificence of God through prayer. Given the modern view of the academy,57

it is not presently

common to see works of academic achievement founded on the basis of a devotional, Christian prayer.

Thus, Anselm ought to be an example to the present-day Christian community on how to wed the

scholarly and religious aspects of life. Even more particularly, however, Christians should conclude from

Anselm the fact that their theological convictions ought not to be separate from every other aspect in

life; especially the academic. Anselm’s theological commitments to Christian theism are what drive him

to learn more according to the Proslogion. This, therefore, should be a call to those Christians who may

be fearful of contributing academically because certain influential people in society maintain that

Christian belief is intellectually void. Anselm clearly refutes this notion. Thus, the preceding two

examples demonstrate ways in which Anselm’s ontological argument is valuable for the Christian

thinker.

Conclusion

Plainly, the above information does not begin exhaust the discussion associated with Anselm’s

ontological argument. However, it has been demonstrated that Anselm’s proof has been widely

influential throughout the centuries and that it possesses both limitations and value for the Christian

thinker. Thus, if anything, this article may be a good conversation starter. Whatever discussion may take

place concerning Anselm’s ontological argument, it cannot be refuted that Anselm touched a nerve

within the theological and philosophical communities that will continue to be a point of contention for

many. Let Christian readers be reminded, however, that Anselm’s contribution to the history of Christian

thought is timeless and thought provoking. His ontological argument, then, is an essential component of

church history; one of which Christians ought to be familiar with

Dylan Rowland is Teaching Elder at Grace Community Church in Waverly, OH. He also serves as

instructor in History and Apologetics at Pike Christian Academy and President of The Southern Ohio

Pastor’s Coalition. He is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary (MDiv).

56

Anselm, 84. 57

Referring here to institutions of higher learning, or college.

27

Bibliography

Anselm. Anselm of Canterbury The Major Works. Edited by Brian Davies and G.R. Evans. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2008.

Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Brown, Colin. Philosophy and the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1968.

Craig, William Lane, and J.P. Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers

Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003.

____, William Lane. "Classical Apologetics." In Five Views on Apologetics. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry

and Seven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Feinberg, Paul D.. "Cumulative Case Apologetics." In Five Views on Apologetics. Edited by Stanley N.

Gundry and Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994.

Palmer, Donald. Looking at Philosophy. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.

Taliaferro, Charles. "The Project Of Natural Theology." In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

Edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

28

Ontology and the Other

Introduction

In Calvin’s Geneva from 1542-1544, plague devastated the populace. The sick were sent outside of the

city walls to the plague hospital, whereby they might receive some semblance of medical care while also

remaining quarantined away from the rest of society. The diseases was deadly, and even though there

was much pity and concern for those taken ill, little could be done for them but send them out, lock the

gates, and pray that God might miraculously intervene. Even Calvin’s esteemed company of pastors,

dedicated to overseeing the spiritual welfare of the people, shuttered themselves away for fear of

infection. A few brave men did, for sense of duty, give their lives while serving those outside the city

gates. These outliers did not wait to see who might be healed, who might get well enough to re-enter

into society and, subsequently, the purview of their care, but rather they met with the sick and broken

on their terms.58

The church, throughout the centuries, has too often been defined by what she isn’t rather than what

she is; if only the church could build walls high enough to keep out the infectious disease of unbelief, she

would eventually become an isolated utopia. The “other” is most assuredly out there, the men and

women with whom our lives intersect on a daily basis. Yet for many Christians the consistent interaction

with the “others” in our lives often translates into little more than cordial chit-chat that is, above all else,

safe. We quietly go about our lives, attend worship services on the weekends, perhaps gather for a small

group in our homes throughout the week, but there is little intentional engagement with the outside

world, for it is when we purposely engage unbelievers that our lives can become messy, confused, and

our walls of dogma fail to seem safe any longer.

Why should Christians risk engaging the “other?” This is not merely a metaphoric call for evangelism.

Evangelism is necessary, yes. However, what Christians must address is whether there is something

inherent to the “other,” something that defines them as human beings that should serve as the impetus

for engaging them with love and compassion. If the answer to the prior question is yes, then how,

practically, should Christians seek to go about intentionally living in a world filled with “others?”

Too often we fail to consider these questions. For some, they risk far too much. The “other,” as it were,

dwells in a place of uncertainty, and there is the possibility that by engaging them, we might actually get

some dirt on our hands. Or, heaven forbid, my engagement with non-Christians might challenge some

aspect of my theological system. Some are simply too lazy to consider anything beyond the bounds of

what is known. Let the “other” come to us, on our terms, they might say. It is not enough to simply say

that we want others to come to Christ. We are residents of this world, neighbored all around by

“others.” We cannot afford to operate under the command of our apathy and anxieties, but rather we

must intentionally engage the “others” in our lives.

58

The information for this introductory paragraph was taken from Scott M. Manetsch, Calvin’s Company of Pastors,

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 284-289.

29

An Ontology of Humans as Created Persons

There is no shortage of Scripture that supports the notion that Christians are to selflessly love and care

for other Christians. Jesus articulated a primacy when it comes to serving the brothers and sisters.59

James’ plea for active faith amongst believers is centered on meeting the needs of the poor in the

church.60

Even the description of the early church portrays a community that was dedicated to selflessly

serving those within their midst.61

Exegetes have bemoaned the myriad ways in which texts such as

these have been misapplied to argue that social justice with regard to society in general is a necessary

requirement for the people of God. While this check is a helpful reminder of proper prioritization within

the church, are there other texts and theological principles from which we might build a proper

understanding of why the church is to purposefully engage those outside of the family of faith?

A first step in addressing this question is to acknowledge that humans are, inherently, created persons.62

The weight of the biblical testimony supports the notion that humans are created. We are given a

depiction of the creation of man in Gen 1:26-27. The poetic rhythm of the Hebrew text itself slows as

the author describes the climax of God’s creative work, namely, that of humankind; seemingly all of

God’s creative acts thus far have driven toward this creative crescendo.63

The Psalms also speak of God’s

sovereign and active power over the creation of man. David speaks of the Lord’s activity in the womb in

Ps 139:13-16, as he proclaims “for you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s

womb.”64

John, at the opening of his Gospel, pronounces the creative power of the Word (Jn 1:1-5), who

was with God the Father and active in the creation of humanity. This is but a brief sampling of the

panoply of biblical evidence, yet it represents the broader argument, painting a picture of a God who

has created humanity with both personal intimacy and profound intricacy.

It is not particularly complicated to make the case that human beings are created by God. A far more

complex task, yet one of as much significance to the argument at hand, is attempting to address the

notion that in addition to being created beings, humans are also persons. The philosophical notion of

personhood carries with it a myriad of nuances and arguments, but it is succinctly addressed in the

definition, “to be a person means to have a kind of independence — not absolute, but relative.”65

There

is a freedom that humanity possesses, a habitus, at creation; therein, human beings have “the power of

self-determination and self-direction.”66

Certainly human beings do indeed possess a degree of freedom

of self-determination and direction, and if this were the only category or requisite quality for defining

personhood then it would seem that the argument was quite complete.

That is not the case, however, as some scholars have argued that it is philosophically unacceptable to

simply accede to the notion that personhood is a part of the ontology of all human beings. John D.

Zizioulas argues that personhood is not primarily about a specific quality, but rather is only found in the

59

Matt 25:31-46 60

Jas 2:14-17 61

Acts 2:42-47; 6:1-6 62

He is not the first, but I utilize this terminology in light of the succinct argument presented in Anthony Hoekema’s

Created in God’s Image, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986). 63

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 15, (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 27. 64

All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011). 65

Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 5. 66

Ibid., 6.

30

context of relationship, and God is the only being in all of the universe that has a claim to genuine

ontological personhood, as he is both uncreated and inherently relational within the context of the

Trinity.67

Thus, Zizioulas holds, the only way for human beings to know ontological personhood is to

enter into relationship with God via new birth, baptism, whereby one’s ontological identity of

personhood becomes rooted in their relationship with the eternal God.68

This argument militates against

the position that all of humanity is created, ontologically, as persons.

Yet the very foundation of Zizioulas’ argument, that personhood is found in relationship to God,

provides the source for a fuller definition of personhood that upholds both the uniqueness of humanity

as self-determining creatures, and also the dependence upon a relationship with an uncreated Creator.

Wolfhart Pannenberg provides this definition, as he stresses that the personhood of human beings is

found in an openness to the world and openness to God, by which he means that human beings are

distinct from the rest of the created world in that they possess a freedom to transcend their

environments, yet are also infinitely dependent on an infinite God.69

He states, “(w)hat the environment

is for animals, God is for man. God is the goal in which alone his striving can find rest and his destiny be

fulfilled.”70

This definition, man as open to the world and open to God, holds in tension the qualitative

freedom that is evident in all of humanity, and the dependence that defines us as created beings. Where

Zizioulas and others would find humanity lacking in ontological personhood primarily because they hold

that it is not qualitative (i.e. it is not human freedom of self-determination) and humans, as created and

sinful beings are not inherently in relationship with an uncreated God, Pannenberg helpfully articulates

that it is in this dependence on God, and humanity’s potentiality for relationship with God, that serves

as the ontological foundation for human personhood. This potentiality for relationship with, and

dependence upon, God, integral to the personhood of humanity, prescribes worth to all human beings

and helps to define the way in which we, as the church, should engage all of humanity.

The confluence of humanity as both created beings and persons, held in appropriate tension, represents

the first building block in the argument that all human beings are worthy of purposeful engagement.

There are no theological delineations dividing anyone in this category as an created person. All bear

distinction from the rest of creation, all are dependent on the Triune God for initial and sustained

existence, and all have a potentiality for relationship with God. Yet this is not the only notion in Scripture

that provides the foundation for human worth. The second building block in our argument centers on

the reality that humans are created persons who, even in their fallen state, bear the imago dei.

The imago dei and the Dignity of Man

The church has, for its many centuries, witnessed a spilled river of ink with regard to what comprises the

image of God in man that, subsequently, imbues all of humanity with worth. What is it, if anything at all,

that is innate within mankind that requires that human beings be shown a dignity and respect? This is

not a debate that escaped the Church Fathers. Augustine, harboring vestiges of a neo-platonic

philosophy, argued that the image had to be found in the soul or mind of man, rather than within his

67

John D. Zizioulas, “On Being a Person: Towards an Ontology of Personhood,” in Persons Divine and Human, eds.

Christoph Schwöbel and Colin E. Gunton, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 42. 68

Zizioulas, “On Being a Person,” 43-44. 69

Wolfhart Pannenberg, What is Man?, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 12-13. 70

Pannenberg, What is Man?, 13.

31

corporeal existence.71

Gregory of Nyssa held that Christ is the archetypal image, and it is in Christ, then,

that human beings are able to repossess the image of God that was lost in the Fall.72

Aquinas espoused

the view that the image of God was found primarily in the intellect and reason of man.73

Calvin said,

“the likeness of God extends to the whole excellence by which man’s nature towers over all the kinds of

living creatures.”74

Ultimately, Calvin would go on to affirm that the image of God in man has not been

totally destroyed in the fall, but rather was sullied so as to be unrecognizable.75

In all of this, we must acknowledge that to wade too deeply into the water of the above arguments

regarding the specifics of the image of God would be folly in such a discussion as the task at hand.

Rather, we must establish, first, whether or not the image of God in man has been retained in some

sense after the Fall. Secondly, at minimum, we must determine what does the imago dei imply with

regard to the dignity and worth of all of humanity, whether Christian or non-Christian?

As the scholars mentioned above represent the vast array of opinions as to the exact nature of the

image of God in man, so too are there varied positions as to whether or not humanity, following the fall

of man, retained some semblance of the image of God. There are positions at either pole of this

argument. Luther believed that the image of God was a largely unknowable quality in Adam whereby

“he not only knew God and believed that He was good, but that he also lived in a life that was wholly

godly,” and yet, following Adam’s sin, he lost the image and knew death.76

Karl Barth, on the other hand,

argues that the image of God in man, because it is found primarily in the capacity for relationship

between man and man, and God and man, argues that the image of God in man cannot be lost.77

A more nuanced understanding of the image of God in man acknowledges, first, that the image of God

has not been entirely eliminated from mankind as a result of the fall. For instance, in Gen 9:6, God issues

a warning against murder, ultimately requiring the death penalty for those who commit this crime,

stating, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” and this is based on the

rationale “for God made man in his own image.” This statement only makes sense in light of the fact

that man, to some degree, retains an aspect of the image, as it is “because of man’s special status

among the creatures that this verse insists on the death penalty for murder.”78

A similar argument can

be made from James 3:9, in which James states, in reference to the tongue, “(w)ith it we bless our Lord

and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.”

71

Colin Gunton, “Trinity, Ontology and Anthropology: Towards a Renewal of the Doctrine of the Imago Dei, in

Persons Divine and Human, eds. Christoph Schwöbel and Colin E. Gunton, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 49. 72

Robert Louis Wilken, “Biblical Humanism: The Patristic Convictions,” in Personal Identity in Theological

Perspective, eds. Richard Lints, Michael S. Horton, and Mark R. Talbot, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

2006), 23. 73

Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 36. 74

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, vol 1, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The

Westminster Press, 1960),188. 75

Calvin, Institutes, 189. 76

Luther quoted in William C Weinrich, “Homo theologicus: Aspects of a Lutheran Doctrine of Man,” in Personal

Identity in Theological Perspective, eds. Richard Lints, Michael S. Horton, and Mark R. Talbot, (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2006), 35. 77

Hoekema’s discussion of Barth, Created in God’s Image, 51. 78

Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 194.

32

There is certainly warrant for the argument that Christians are, in Christ, to be conformed to the image

of God made evident in Christ. Indeed, Christ is said to be the perfect image of God, and it is through the

process of sanctification that Christians are conformed to that image by the power of the Holy Spirit.79

This is, effectively, why Luther argued against the fact that mankind still retains any aspect of the image

of God. Yet these passages need not militate against the notion that while there are certainly functional

aspects of the image of God that are being cultivated by God in redeemed humanity, there is an

ontological aspect of the image that holds true still.

A brief caveat is in order at this point. In no way does any of this argue that human beings have worth

apart from that which is imbued to them by God, nor does it argue against the doctrine of original sin.

All human beings are sinful, full stop. All attempts at establishing human dignity or worth apart from

that granted by God fall utterly short, which is why there is no room for the notion of mere human

potentiality. That is to stand against the testimony of Scripture whereby man is declared sinful, his good

deeds mere rags before a holy God, and he is utterly dependent on the grace of God for salvation. These

are theologically non-negotiable.80

Yet, if we acknowledge that the image of God in man has, at least in some ontological capacity, been

retained following the fall, we must then ask what this means with regard to the worth of all human

beings. Amidst the theological milieu, we might come to a base conclusion, simply, that all human

beings have worth. In this, it is important to recognize that, per the previous caveat, the worth of

humanity is not found in “moral worthiness but in the gift of God, who gives us our worth by making us

in his image.”81

Herein is found the true weight, then, of arguments such as that seen in Gen 9:6. Jewett

and Shuster note, “(w)hen, therefore, we impugn the dignity of our neighbor, we offer an affront to our

Creator, whose work we call in question and threaten to destroy.”82

The profound implications of this

specific reality for how the church lives out its theology will be addressed momentarily, yet we must

allow the cumulative effect of the previous arguments to bear their weight upon us. Humans are,

ontologically, of worth because they are created persons made in the image of God. This is true

irrespective of whether one is a Christian or a non-Christian. If this is true, it begs the question, how

should the inherent worth of all humans impact the manner in which we, as Christians, engage them?

That question, as it were, is to be addressed in the sections that follow.

The “Other” as Neighbor

It would be fruitless were we to end our discussion by simply affirming that all human beings have value,

and leave it at that. Of what value is knowledge if it does not lead to a corresponding action? Thus, the

necessary question that must be addressed is, now that we can confidently assert that all human beings

have worth, how must we, as the church, engage those who are outside of our walls? How should we

engage the “other”?

79

The New Testament contains an abundance of references whereby Christ is said to be the image of the Father,

i.e. 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3. Additionally, there is much merit to the argument that the image of God is being

renewed in Christians as a result of the process of sanctification (Rom 8:29; Col 3:10). 80

I realize that this may seem a bit superfluous, yet I believe it necessary to be quite clear on this point. To

argue for the worth of all human beings is not to argue against total depravity. 81

Paul K. Jewett and Marguerite Shuster, Who We Are: Our Dignity as Human, (Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 101. 82

Jewett and Shuster, Who We Are, 101.

33

One of the remarkable aspects of the Bible is that it is anything but a collection of idyllic tales, but rather

is filled with men and women who demonstrably wrestle with many of the doubts and concerns that we

have today. And Jesus welcomed all questions and comers. One of the best known parables in Scripture,

the Parable of the Good Samaritan, is produced as a result of Jesus’ interaction with a man who had

questions regarding the confluence of his engagement of others, and his faith.83

In this text, a lawyer

addresses Jesus with a question dripping with eschatological significance: “what must I do to inherit

eternal life?”84

When Jesus, as he often did, responded to the question with a corresponding question,

the man affirms what the Law states in Deuteronomy 6:5 (love the Lord) and Leviticus 19:18 (love one’s

neighbor). What follows is a query that stands at the heart of everything that has been addressed in our

discussion thus far: “who is my neighbor?”85

Luke tells us that the man was “desiring to justify himself,”

as he sought to draw lines as to who might be the recipient of his neighborliness.

Such a question is pregnant with anticipation, and the parable that Jesus subsequently offers does not

fail to raise eyebrows and, likely, the ire of some in the crowd. Jesus places a Samaritan, a people group

hated by the Jews, schismatics and idolaters as they were, at the center of the story, and it is this

Samaritan, rather than the priest or the Levite, who demonstrates the “neighborliness” articulated in

Lev 19:18 (and the lawyer’s response in Luke 10:27). In so doing, Jesus decimates the racial, and

otherwise, walls that the lawyer’s question implied, and with great emphasis articulated that there are

no restrictions to neighborliness. Lest we think that the lawyer merely represented a dogmatic Jewish

faction that had resisted Jesus as the Messiah from day one, honest self-evaluation will tell us that we

are prone to the same tendency; it is far simpler to place parameters on our love and care, to avoid the

world of the “other.” But that delineation flies in the face of what Jesus himself teaches. In fact, as

Darrell Bock states, “the issue is not who we may or may not serve, but serving where need exists,” for

we are “not to seek to limit who our neighbors might be,” but “we are to be a neighbor to those whose

needs we can meet.”86

Practically speaking, then, if an individual falls within the spheres of our

existence, whether it be at home, work, or otherwise, they are absolutely our neighbor, insofar as we

have a responsibility to lovingly engage them when and where we see a need.

It is the confluence of the worth of all human beings and the responsibility that is placed on the church

to subsequently care for our neighbors, the “others” of this world without restriction, that is of

paramount importance. Jesus concludes his address to the lawyer with a simple phrase that carries the

freight of eternity: “You go, and do likewise.”87

That call that was issued by the Messiah thousands of

years ago stands for us today. But as we seek to go, and do likewise, what else might we glean from the

Good Samaritan that speaks to the more practical nuance of loving one’s neighbor? What does it mean

to be a neighbor and how do we live this out?

The first aspect of note within this example demonstrates that being a neighbor to the “other” means

far more than simply practicing evangelism. One should certainly never minimize the significance of

pointing others to the hope of the gospel, yet the portrait of the Good Samaritan presents a holistic

83

Luke 10:25-37 84

Luke 10:25 85

Luke 10:29 86

Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 1035. 87

Luke 10:37

34

engagement. In fact, Jesus’ presentation of being a “neighbor” contains six specific actions taken by the

Samaritan: (1) he went to the man; (2) he bound his wounds; (3) he administered oil and wine; (4) he

placed him on his animal; (5) he took him to an inn; and (6) ensured that the man received the care that

he needed.88

Being a neighbor to the “other” requires a holistic engagement. It means that we are

aware of the needs of others, all others, and seek to meet those needs when and where we can. This

parable is not some overly spiritualized or allegorized picture; rather, it is an immensely practical call for

followers of Jesus to embody the love of God as they love others around them.

Several factors are prevalent in neighborly engagement with others in our lives. Initially, we must be

aware of the needs of those within our spheres of existence. The crucial first step in the Samaritan’s

engagement of the “other” was his awareness of the man in the first place. A preoccupation with the

journey before him would have prevented his help, but he saw the man, and he went to him. Though it

is likely far more comfortable to don Christian blinders, interacting only with those with whom we are in

theological agreement, in order for us to “go, and do likewise,” we must engage the “other.” That means

cultivating relationships with men and women who do not know Christ, both because of their worth as

created persons and because of the mandate for all Christians to love well their neighbors without

restriction. Thus, in order to embody neighborliness, in order to tangibly meet the needs of others, we

must be aware of their needs in the first place, and that implies a relational proximity that requires a

significant and intentional engagement with the “others” in our lives.

A second factor inherent to being a neighbor is the giving of holistic care in neighborly engagement. The

aforementioned six steps taken by the Good Samaritan demonstrate a qualitative aspect of the notion

of “neighbor,” namely, that it involves sacrificial service for the tangible good of others. Edwards argues:

The parable does not require hearers to convert enemies into friends, to do everything for

everyone, to solve the problems of the world. To be a neighbor is not a condition one inherits, in

other words, but a choice one makes to render the tangible assistance one is able to render to

those in need of it, and to render it irrespective of ethnic, religious, cultic, or racial differences.89

The issue that Edwards raises above is of particular note, namely, that to be a neighbor is a choice one

makes, rather than merely a a condition one inherits. This implies that, in order for Christians to serve as

neighbors, we must exegete our respective contexts, recognize where needs exist, and intentionally

seek to meet those needs. Thus, the application of this parable is as diverse as the communities and

relationships in which we find ourselves. Perhaps it is put into practice by providing meals to the family

of an ill neighbor. Perhaps it is found in volunteering time to assist at a local school. Perhaps it means

welcoming a new co-worker’s family over for dinner in your home. To be a neighbor is a challenging and

multifaceted decision to make, yet it is a necessary one for those who seek to live as doers, and not

simply hearers, of the Word.

Subsequent to the call to be doers of the Word, neighbors do not simply seek to bind up the wounds of

the broken, as articulated in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Serving as a neighbor to the “other,”

must also mean proactively pursuing his/her good. Miroslav Volf, in his work A Public Faith, argues that

loving God and loving one’s neighbor is at the core of the Christian faith, and the cumulative result of

this pursuit is a view toward human flourishing. He states,“(t)he challenge facing Christians is ultimately

88

The list of six actions is from Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, 1032-1033. 89

James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series, (Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 323-324.

35

very simple: love God and neighbor rightly so that we may both avoid malfunctions of faith and relate

God positively to human flourishing.”90

With regard to what he believes to be the fundamental challenge

that faces Christians today, Volf states, it is “to really mean that the presence and activity of the God of

love, who can make us love our neighbors and ourselves, is our hope and the hope of the world.”91

Implicit within Volf’s argument is the notion that Christians must actively seek the good of the “other”

not merely because it is their neighborly duty, but also because that neighborly duty brings with it the

love of God who, by his Spirit, empowers us to be neighbors. Our choice to be neighborly is far more

than a good deed that speaks well of those who call themselves Christians. Rather, it corresponds with

the call of Jesus in Luke 11 for the questioning lawyer to “go, and do likewise.” Consequently, Christians,

as good neighbors, might then be able to proclaim to this world “that this God is the secret of our

flourishing as persons, cultures, and interdependent inhabitants of a single globe.”92

This call for neighborliness in the context of human flourishing is no derailment into a world whereby

“the gospel” becomes something we do, or a backdoor approach toward promoting the “social gospel.”

The gospel, rather, compels Christians to action. This is no new concept, and many folks who sit within

the rows of staunchly conservative, evangelical churches each Sunday would likely be able to articulate,

from passages such as Ephesians 2:8-10, the direct connection that exists between the reality of the

gospel and the resultant call for kingdom work. Yet, the task of loving God and loving our neighbors

often stops with loving God and loving those with whom we are comfortable. We are kind to fellow

parishioners. We volunteer when asked, perhaps even engaging the unbelieving community during a

food drive or a back-to-school event for community children and their families. These are not at all bad

things in which to participate. And yet, they often distract us from being neighbors to the “others” in our

lives by convincing us that neighborliness is somehow a program affiliated with the local church, rather

than an intrinsic aspect of the lives that we lead. It is imperative that we, as Christians, recognize the

unique neighborly responsibilities that we have per our unique spheres of existence. It is likely that no

one else shares the same job, activities, and home address, providing each of us with the responsibility

of acknowledging our spheres, and engaging the others therein as neighbors. It is gospel work that we

are doing when we, as neighbors, love well those within our spheres of existence so that they might see,

feel, know, and — yes — hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sent and Sustained in Christ

Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan and the call for Christians to serve as neighbors highlights the

reality that the topic of engaging “others” is not but one of many choices in some choose-your-own-

adventure story. Intentionally engaging the “other” is a biblical mandate, as demonstrated in the various

other biblical texts that command that Christians “go.” Jesus’ followers were commanded to “go

therefore and make disciples of all nations,” to carry the message of the gospel to the extremes of the

earth.93

Earlier, it was mentioned that the notion of engaging the “other” was not strictly about

evangelism, as that belies a myopic understanding of the biblical witness. Yet, we must be clear that

while the mandate to intentionally engage the “other” is not simply about evangelism, it is most

assuredly not less than that. Christians, then, might be understood as “sent neighbors.” We are sent, in

90

Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith, (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011), 73. 91

Volf, A Public Faith, 74. 92

Volf, A Public Faith, 74. 93

Matt 28:19; Acts 1:8

36

the sense that we are compelled by the command of Christ to go, carrying the message of the gospel,

and make disciples amongst the “others” in the world. We are neighbors, in that we are also called to

self-sacrificially love those within our spheres of existence.

The ultimate portrayal of a “sent neighbor” is evident in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Not only is

the incarnation a profound picture of the notion of being a “sent neighbor,” Christ’s incarnation (and

subsequent death and resurrection) empowers Christians to live Spirit-filled lives of sent neighborliness

whereby we intentionally engage the “others” in our lives.94

Viewing the responsibility of Christian

ministry to the “other” through the lens of our union with Christ, J. Todd Billings argues from 1 Cor 9:19-

23 that herein Paul calls Christians to be servants to others “precisely because God has revealed himself

in the particularity and uniqueness of the obedient servant, Jesus Christ.”95

He goes on to argue that

“Christians are called to witness to God’s unique Word, Jesus Christ, in a way that reflects conformity to

his life of obedient servanthood.”96

The argument here holds that Christians are to reflect the selfless

love of Christ by pointing toward this self-same love with lives marked by humble service toward others.

We emulate Jesus when we live as “sent neighbors.” The message of the gospel is for the “others” in our

lives, those who possess immense worth and yet apart from Christ will perish. We engage them with this

message as neighbors. We see them, love them in the very marrow of our being, and live amongst them

self-sacrificially. This must be understood as a both/and proposition; we carry a message and bear a

mission. Volf, reflecting on this necessary tension, states,

(F)ollowers of Christ are engaged in the world with their whole being. Engagement is not a

matter of either speaking or doing; not a matter of either offering a compelling intellectual vision

or embodying a set of alternative practices; not a matter of either merely making manifest the

richness and depth of interior life or merely working to change the institutions of society (…) It is

all of these things and more. The whole person in all aspects of her life is engaged in fostering

human flourishing and serving the common good.97

Thus, as whole persons living as “sent neighbors,” we go to the “others” in our lives, going with the

message of hope and the ultimate impetus to love well. Namely, that these “others” in our lives might

acknowledge not only that we love well, but that they might know the One whose love compels us to

go.

Conclusion: A Call for Intentional Engagement

It is a foregone conclusion that we as Christians, and residents in this world, will daily interact with those

who do not know Christ, with those who are “others.” In the midst of this inevitability, we often fail to

consider its implications. At the outset, we spoke of the tendency within the church to view its doctrinal

walls as impenetrable barriers. Those outside might well be sick and dying, but at least they are not

94

That is not to say that the incarnation merely serves as a paradigm for our mission to the other. J. Todd Billings, in

his work Union With Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,

2011), has provided a helpful critique of the “Incarnation as Paradigm” model, instead emphasizing union with

Christ as that which serves as the impetus for, and empowering of, Christian ministry. See, especially, pp.123-165. 95

Billings, Union with Christ, 145. 96

Ibid.,152. 97

Volf, A Public Faith, 96-97.

37

infecting those within. Within, relationship might freely flourish because it is safe, because it is

comfortable, all within the secure walls of the church.

While there may be some who view the church as an impregnable fortress sheltered against the danger

of unbelief, I do not think that this is how the preponderance of Christians view the “others” in our lives

today. Few of us would fall into the category of societal isolationists who, like many Genevan pastors

during the plague, simply shuttered the doors of the church until the virulence passed. Rather, we are

prone to a far more insidious and no less dangerous, tendency: apathy. It is simple to acknowledge that

all human beings possess value and worth, even those in our lives who we are certain are bound

headlong for Hell, and yet do nothing in response.

This essay is not a call for some specific action. It is impossible to prescribe specific action across the

myriad contexts wherein the church exists. We all possess particular opportunities to live as neighbors

amongst the men and women in our lives. Rather, it is a call for intentional engagement. Scripture

provides us the lenses by which we are to view the world where we live and through which we see the

people with whom we work and grocery shop, with whom we watch football games and eat meals.

These men and women, created persons of immense worth, deserve far more than our apathy disguised

as kindness. Every interaction matters, every word spoken. Let us live out our days viewing the world

through the lenses of Scripture whereby we are called to live as sent neighbors, welcoming the “other”

into our homes and our lives, proclaiming the truth of the gospel and loving with a tenacious

selflessness. It will most certainly be uncomfortable and messy. There will be questions to which we do

not have answers, which give us pause and steal our sleep. Yet the gain of persevering in these

relationships, faithfully loving and serving the others in our lives, is nothing short of eternal. Apathy is

not an option as we live our lives amongst so many “others.” May we daily take seriously the command

of Jesus, as sent neighbors, to go and do likewise.

Kyle Cayton is an elder at Redemption Bible Church in Arlington Heights, IL. He is completing a Master’s

of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

38

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Billings, J. Todd. Union With Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Darrell L. Bock, Luke. 2 Vols. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 Vols. Ed. John T. McNeill. Philadelphia: The

Westminster Press, 1960.

Edwards James R. The Gospel According to Luke. The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015.

Gunton, Colin. “Trinity, Ontology and Anthropology: Towards a Renewal of the Doctrine of the

Imago Dei.” In Persons Divine and Human, edited by Christoph Schwöbel and Colin E.

Gunton, 47-61. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.

Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.

Jewett, Paul K. and Marguerite Shuster. Who We Are: Our Dignity as Human. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1996.

Manetsch, Scott M. Calvin’s Company of Pastors. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. What is Man? Contemporary Anthropology in Theological Perspective.

Trans. Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1970.

Volf, Miroslav. A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good. Grand Rapids,

MI: Brazos Press, 2011.

Weinrich, William C. “Homo theologicus: Aspects of a Lutheran Doctrine of Man.” In Personal

Identity in Theological Perspective, edited by Richard Lints, Michael S. Horton, and

Mark R. Talbot, 29-44. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 15. Waco, TX: Word Books,

1987.

Wilken, Robert Louis. “Biblical Humanism: The Patristic Convictions.” In Personal Identity in

Theological Perspective, edited by Richard Lints, Michael S. Horton, and Mark R. Talbot, 13-28.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

Zizioulas, John D. “On Being a Person: Towards an Ontology of Personhood.” In Persons Divine and

Human, edited by Christoph Schwöbel and Colin E. Gunton, 33-46. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.

39

A Review of K. Scott Oliphint’s Covenantal Apologetics

In Covenantal Apologetics, K. Scott Oliphint takes on the task of redefining presuppositional apologetics.

Oliphint's position falls under the label of presuppositional apologetics, but his goal is to provide a more

accurate label for the position. Since everyone is in a covenant relationship with God (Rom. 1:18-23), it

is Oliphint's contention that covenantal apologetics best describes the school of thought.

Oliphint is extremely honest in his own assessment of his book. He is careful to make his readers well

aware of the fact that in order for one to engage in the form of argumentation that he proposes, one

must be reformed in his theology. A person must be willing to relinquish any claim to self-authority and

submit solely to God as completely sovereign over all things. The person seeking to engage in covenantal

apologetics must have it settled in his mind and heart that the Bible is the Word of God and is the sole

authority for one’s belief’s and practice. Right from the introduction, Oliphint tells the reader where he

intends to take them. He states that “the ‘movement’ of the book will progress from the simple to the

more complex” and he is rather upfront about the fact that each chapter will “build on the ones before

it.” Oliphint deliberately informs the reader of exactly what he intends to teach them. His position is that

“the same Christ who rules over you [the believer], rules over those who oppose him. The fact that

someone has not set Christ apart as Lord in his heart in no way detracts from or undermines the central

point that he is Lord over all.” He makes sure that the reader understands the two main implications of

this view; first, “that truth is not relative,” and second,” that we must base our defense of Christianity on

reality, and reality is what God says it is.” The admonition is that as soon as we, as believers, attempt to

step into our opponent’s worldview or a supposed neutral position, we lose all ability to speak

authoritatively.

Oliphint provides the readers with ten tenets that form the structure of the covenantal approach, which

he believes are absolutely foundational to the application of this method. They are:

1. The faith that we are defending must begin with, and necessarily include, the triune God –

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – who, as God, condescends to create and to redeem.

2. God’s covenantal relationship is authoritative by virtue of what it is, and any covenantal,

Christian apologetic will necessarily stand on and utilize that authority in order to defend

Christianity.

3. It is the truth of God’s revelation, together with the work of the Holy Spirit, that brings about a

covenantal change from one who is in Adam to one who is in Christ.

4. Man (male and female) as image of God is in covenant with the triune God for eternity.

5. All people know the true God, and that knowledge entails covenantal obligations.

6. Those who are and remain in Adam suppress the truth that they know. Those who are in Christ

see that truth for what it is.

7. There is an absolute, covenantal antithesis between Christian theism and any other, opposing

position. Thus, Christianity is true and anything opposing it is false.

8. Suppression of the truth, like the depravity of sin, is total but not absolute. Thus every

unbelieving position will necessarily have within it ideas, concepts, notions, and the like that it

has taken and wrenched from their true, Christian context.

9. The true, covenantal knowledge of God in man, together with God’s universal mercy, allows for

persuasion in apologetics.

10. Every fact and experience is what it is by virtue of the covenantal, all-controlling plan and

purpose of God.

40

Even though the method he proposes has a different foundation than other methods, Oliphint uses the

same verses to show the necessity of practicing apologetics. Most every apologist uses 1 Peter 3:15 as

their charter verse, but the vast majority neglect the first part of the verse, which commands the

believer to set Christ apart as Lord. Far too often, the verse is presented as if it starts with “always be

ready…” The chapters of the book are arranged in such a way that the argument flows from one verse to

the next. They are (1) “Always Ready” – 1 Peter 3:15, (2) “Set Christ Apart as Lord” – emphasizing the

first part of 1 Peter 3:15, (3) “Proof to All Men” – Paul on Mar’s Hill – Acts 17, (4) “We Persuade Others”

– 2 Cor. 5:11 – our goal is persuasion, not to inform, (5) “We Destroy Arguments: The Achilles’ Heel – 2

Cor. 10:5, (6) “Walk in Wisdom Toward Outsiders” – Col. 4:5-6, (7) “You Are Very Religious” – returning

to Paul’s statement in Acts 17:22, and (8) the Conclusion. Oliphint provides fictional conversations

throughout the later chapters in order to give the reader a glimpse of how the method looks practically.

Oliphint takes the school of thought known as presuppositional apologetics to the next level. I find it

interesting that many of Cornelius Van Til’s disciples (Bahnsen, Frame, Oliphint, and a few others) are

better at explaining Van Til’s theories than Van Til himself. The book and approach is named Covenantal

Apologetics mainly as a reaction against the criticisms against presuppositional apologetics and the fact

that Oliphint believes that the term presuppositional does not accurately represent the approach. It is

Oliphint’s contention, as well as my own, that everyone operates from their own presuppositions in the

beliefs that they hold, and therefore, it is simply unfair to label one approach as presuppositional when

all practice it.

Every Christian should read this book, though the content requires hard work. I gained so much more in

my second reading of the book than I did in my first but I still found myself re-reading paragraphs and

pages to make sure I comprehended the subject matter correctly. With that said, Oliphint’s writing style

does make difficult theological concepts easier to understand. One of the main critiques of Oliphint’s

mentor, Cornelius VanTil, was that he was extremely difficult to understand in his writings.

This book is more than an apologetics book and it will be beneficial to the reader in the realms of

theology, evangelism, as well as other disciplines. Oliphint moves the apologetics discussion out of the

realm of “pre-evangelism” into the realm of real life conversations that deal with every person’s

covenantal relationship with God. He continually stresses the point that every person who has ever

lived, is living now, and will ever live is in a covenantal relationship with God. They are either “in Adam”

suppressing the truth of God’s existence and His authority over everything or they are “in Christ” living

in submission to God’s reign and authority. There is no neutral position. I have read many apologetics

books, but I have never had my love for God deepened while reading any of them, like I have reading

Covenantal Apologetics.

Jeff Chamberlain is an elder at Cornerstone Baptist Church and an instructor in our Free Seminary

program. He is a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (MDiv), and is currently enrolled in a

PhD program with Trinity Theological Seminary.

41

On Thinking Biblically About Our Life in the World:

An Interview with Dr. Michael Wittmer

I had the chance to catch up with Dr. Michael Wittmer, professor of Systematic Theology at Grand

Rapids Theological Seminary, regarding his newest book Becoming Worldly Saints. We discussed why

this book’s subject is important, why it gets overlooked, and how we can develop in our appreciation of

both redemption and the world as we contemplate it. I am especially grateful to Dr. Wittmer for his time

and his answers to these questions.

_________________________________________________

Dave: The question driving your book Worldly Saints is stated as “Can you serve Jesus and enjoy your

life”. What prompted this question?

Dr. Wittmer: I have asked this question my whole life. I want to follow Jesus, but I also want to have fun.

I think everyone asks this question, at least subconsciously. Every time we sin, it’s because we don’t

really think we can serve Jesus and still get what we want out of life.

More recently, the question surfaced for many Christians after reading books such as David Platt’s

Radical and John Piper’s Don’t Waste Your Life. Well-meaning Christians wondered if they had sacrificed

enough. Was their house too large, their car too nice, or their vacation too long? Becoming Worldly

Saints attempts to free Christians from false guilt, without minimizing the real sin we should feel guilty

for. I want to show Christians how they can integrate the high purpose of heaven with the ordinary

pleasures of earth. We don’t have to choose between serving Jesus and enjoying life. In fact, serving

Jesus is the only way we can.

Dave: What do you suppose drives the biggest wedge between these two concepts: serving Jesus and

enjoying life?

Dr. Wittmer: Too many Christians mistakenly divide creation and redemption. They are suspicious of the

material world. The driving theme of Becoming Worldly Saints is the goodness of creation and the

earthiness of the Christian life. Redemption is more than creation, but it is not less. Without a good

creation, we can’t have an incarnation or resurrection. Without a good creation, the gospel doesn’t even

get off the ground.

Chapter seven is the key to the book. There I explain how to read the Bible in a Christian way. When the

Bible says we are “aliens” (1 Peter 2:11) who must not love the “world” (1 John 2:15) it doesn’t mean we

are Martians who are only visiting earth, so try not to become too attached. It uses those terms

ethically. We are earthlings, for heaven’s sake! Scripture commands us to live on earth and thank God

for the pleasures of this world. Our problem is sin, not stuff.

Dave: In the book you speak about the redemption of creation as the key to integrating “the purpose of

heaven with the pleasure of earth” (22). Could you elaborate on the relationship of the gospel to the

resolution of this tension?

42

Dr. Wittmer: Redemption means to restore something, to buy it back. What is redemption restoring?

This entire creation. Scripture repeatedly promises that when Jesus returns he will restore all things

(Acts 3:21; Col. 1:20; Rev. 11:15; 21:1-5).

If redemption restores creation, then the whole point of being a Christian (redemption) is to restore my

human life (creation). There will always be a tension between my human life and my Christian life,

because in a finite world I only have so much time and money. The resources I spent building a shed is

time and money I didn’t give to the church. But these two aspects of life are also complementary. The

more I flourish as a human, the more attractive the gospel becomes (Titus 2:10).

Ultimately, the gospel frees me to be myself. I don’t need to worry that I’m not doing one of the more

“spiritual” jobs, such as pastor or missionary. My salvation does not depend on what I do for God. If I am

accepted by God because of what Jesus has done on my behalf, then I am free to do whatever callings

God has gifted and called me to do. This insight lies at the heart of the Reformation. If you are a

Protestant, you have to believe this. Do what God has called you to do, then go to bed.

Dave: In the book you argue that pop-theology has misunderstood heaven and earth. What do you

mean? How does this relate to our tension with spiritual and earthly things?

Dr. Wittmer: It’s not just pop theology. Academic theology regularly misses this too. Scholars and

pastors who should know better continue to say that our final home is in heaven. The Bible nowhere

says this. Instead, Scripture repeatedly says that our final destination is here, on a restored earth (Isaiah

65:25; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-5).

Praise God for the comfort of knowing that the souls of our loved ones who died in Christ are now with

him in heaven. But praise God even more that they are on the first leg of a journey that is round trip.

The Christian hope is for the resurrection! We believe that at any moment Jesus will return. He will bring

the souls of our loved ones with him, resurrect their bodies, and put them back together. They will live

with Jesus and us as whole people on this restored earth.

Most of our leaders still miss this crucial biblical point. Their sole focus on a spiritual, heavenly home

devalues earth and the physical world. It’s no accident that nearly half of “born again” evangelicals do

not believe their bodies will rise again. In our well-intentioned desire to be spiritual, we are losing the

Christian faith.

Dave: Some Christians, I can only imagine, will be inclined to push back on your book, arguing that the

church is already too worldly and doesn’t need encouragement to “enjoy life”. How would you respond

to such criticisms?

Dr. Wittmer: One friend asked if most pastors didn’t think their people were already too consumed with

worldly pleasure. I said that if we frame it like that we’ve already lost. We talk like the serpent, who

suggested to Eve that God really wasn’t on her side. If you think about it, every wholesome pleasure you

enjoy was God’s idea first. He came up with the idea of sex, and chocolate, and strawberries, and

strawberries dipped in chocolate. Why would we ever think he is against worldly pleasure?

What we must do is help people understand the different senses of “worldly.” Scripture uses the term

“world” to describe God’s good creation (John 3:16) and also to describe sinful lust (1 John 2:15-17). We

must free people to enjoy God’s world in the first sense while hating the sin of this world in the second.

43

Too many Christians suffer from low grade spiritual guilt. They enjoy kayaking, cycling, woodworking,

gardening, and cooking, but they also feel bad about it. They suppose that if they were better Christians

they would spend less time on things they enjoy and more time sacrificing for Jesus. They need to know

that like any good giver, God wants them to enjoy his gifts. They’re actually being ungrateful if they

don’t make time to enjoy what God has graciously given them.

One reader thought this message wouldn’t benefit the persecuted church. He’s wrong. The Apostle Paul

was persecuted more than most, yet he told Timothy to remind preachers to emphasize the enjoyment

of God’s good creation (I Timothy 4:1-8). Persecuted Christians are not masochists. We may enjoy less in

our moment of suffering, but we don’t need to become monks who bring suffering upon ourselves

(early medieval Christians joined monasteries when the persecution ceased).

Once a pious Christian starts down this path, where does it end? In the name of sacrificing for Jesus, you

can always enjoy less. A person may become a monk, denouncing marriage, comfortable clothes, and

determined to live on rice and beans. Well, he can always give up the beans. This sort of sloppy piety, if

followed consistently, will drive you insane. It did Martin Luther, who rebelled and ignited the

Reformation.

When we tell people to enjoy creation, we risk that they might turn their enjoyment into idolatry.

Idolatry is the root sin that we must always oppose. But we must not let our fear of idolatry lead us to

drive into the other ditch. Some conservative Christian leaders are now teaching panentheism. This

technical term means “everything is in God,” and has more in common with Buddhism than Christianity.

These leaders are so afraid of making too much of creation that they make far too little of it. They say

that our world is not actually separate from God, but merely exists as an idea in God’s mind. But if I am

only an idea in God’s mind, then I do not have a real and separate existence. And if I don’t have that,

then I can’t even properly love God. I can’t love the other if there is no other. And so these conservatives

commit their own form of idolatry. In the name of loving God they eliminate the possibility of loving

him.

Here’s the point. There is no “safe” position. Any sound doctrine can be abused. The solution is not to

downplay the right teaching, but to teach rightly even as we warn against its abuse. We don’t discount

grace because some people think it gives them a license to sin. And we must not discount the goodness

of earth just because some people will use it as an excuse for idolatry. The solution to idolatry is not less

enjoyment of earth. It’s telling people to put their hopes and trust in Jesus, which then frees them to

enjoy the world he made and died for (Colossians 1:15-20).

Dave: How might an appreciation for earthly things fuel our spiritual passions?

Dr. Wittmer: We will rightly enjoy the things of earth only when we realize that we can trust Jesus. He is

on our side. If we really believe that, then we will hunger to talk to him in prayer, hear from him in

Scripture, and tell others about him.

Think about how big the gospel becomes. We are not merely selling fire insurance (though not going to

hell is crucially important). We are not merely saving people from something but for something.

Here’s the gospel: would you like to live here forever, on a restored earth free from the ravages of sin?

Or will you choose to burn forever in a lake of fire, separated from everything good and anything that

might provide a bit of relief? Turn from your sin, the sin that is killing you, and put all your hope in Jesus.

44

Your everlasting life will begin now, and you will rise to live on this earth when Jesus returns. If

Christians understood this gospel message, wouldn’t they be more excited to share it with others?

Dave: In some ways your book strikes me as the foundation for a theology of culture. Why might a

theology of culture be important? As Christians continue to wrestle with their place in the world, and

their relationship to culture what counsel would you give for developing a Biblical theology of culture?

Dr. Wittmer: Abraham Kuyper, a turn of the twentieth century Dutch leader, said we must remember

both common grace and antithesis. Common grace reminds us that Christians and non-Christians are in

this together. We both want the best for our world, and we should join hands whenever possible. But

Christians must never forget the antithesis. We see the world in fundamentally different ways from our

non-Christian friends, and so there should be a difference in how we think and live.

The more a given topic approaches the question of God and ultimate meaning, the more antithesis we

should expect to find. The more it approaches our shared experience, the more common grace we will

enjoy. For instance, mathematics will exhibit more common grace (there isn’t a Christian way to do

algebra), while literature will display more antithesis (does meaning lie in the reader, the text, or the

author?).

In common grace we are for the world. Like exiles in Babylon, we pray for the peace and prosperity of

our city (Jeremiah 29:7). But our Yes to our culture will at times demand that we say No to what it is

doing. We will stand against the fallenness of our world because we are for the flourishing of our world.

When we speak out against sin, we must always couch our No in the larger Yes of what we are for. We

oppose casinos because we are for the poor, we oppose pornography because we are for true love, and

we oppose gay marriage and polygamy because we are for children and the families that raise them.

Another helpful distinction discussed in the book is between the church gathered and scattered. The

church primarily gathers to celebrate redemption and primarily scatters to serve creation. If we confuse

these primary roles, the gathered church will lose the gospel and the scattered Christians will lose their

jobs. We want to share Jesus at work, but these opportunities will come more frequently and fruitfully if

our coworkers notice a difference in how we do our jobs. If we think our primary reason for work is

evangelism, if we try to turn every contact into an evangelistic encounter, we probably won’t do our

jobs well and we may even be fired. Who would want to hear about Jesus from that guy?

But if we always give our best because we realize we are serving the Lord Jesus (Colossians 3:23-24),

there is a good chance others will take notice and our witness will be compelling. What would it say to

the world if the best anything was usually a Christian? What if the best carpenters, accountants, masons,

teachers, lawyers, maids, and doctors turned out to be followers of Jesus? Wouldn’t that be the best

advertisement for the gospel? The culture may not like what we believe, but they would have to admit

that something special is going on, and they might be intrigued to take a long look at Jesus (1 Peter

2:12). Let’s do everything for the Lord Jesus, because it counts.

45