“That to the heighth
of this great argument I may assert eternal providence, And justify the ways of
God to men…” John Milton, Paradise Lost
“Mansplaining” reaches
dizzying height of hubris with poet John Milton, who figured several walloping
stanzas of his epic poetry should sufficiently “justify the ways of God to men.”
Really? The very idea of trying to justify God’s ways—as if we could ever truly
figure out the Creator of the universe with our puny human brains—is borderline
nuts. Nevertheless, Milton dove in headfirst and was lauded for his efforts. He
had a 19th century apprentice in James B. Walker, D.D., author of “The
Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation” (1889)—the CLSC book under discussion here. Walker’s goal: explain God’s plan in a way that would knock the legs out
from under his era’s highly literate critics of Christianity. That first
generation of Chautauqua logisticians must have wrestled mightily with this assigned
text; I know I did.
Walker attempts to lay out, in sequential
logic, exactly what God had in mind when He constructed His plan of salvation.
He tackles his subject with supreme confidence, building arguments and
presenting conclusions with literary flourishes worthy of the courtroom “…it
follows, therefore, legitimately and conclusively…” (pg 118). While I admire the
Victorian philosopher’s zeal for corralling dogma and doctrine (not to mention
the Old Testament’s ferocious bloodletting) into fitted-and-bolted frameworks,
I struggle with its inevitable reverse engineering aspects.
Starting with his era’s
elaborate “scientific” anthropology, for example, he posits that God
orchestrated the grand scheme of holiness, priesthood, sacrifice, and temple
worship because the ancient Jews could best understand God via object lessons
and displays of power (i.e. Mt. Sinai, parting of the Red Sea, et al.). He
called them “preparatory steps that led...to the light” (pg 116). Tribal
Judaism, in his theory, wobbles along on religious training wheels until evolved
enough to understand the “perfect system of religion.” (pg 109). Enter Jesus. We
don’t require these sorts of spiritual pyrotechnics now, because we’ve culturally
progressed. No miracles needed, thanks. We’ve got enough intellectual prowess in the new dispensation.
For me, Walker’s book
somehow reduces the wondrous passion of God’s heartfelt redemption to a series
of inescapable logical steps. His respectful, emotionless discourse perhaps
anticipates the predictable Victorian recoil against overly emotional religious
sentiment (labeled, with disgust, “cant”).
His tightly woven
arguments do force conclusions—but only if the reader accepts certain baseline
truths and cares about cohesive, rational deductions. “The preceding premises
being established, the following conclusions result...” (pg 139) Alas, his cherished
conventions of ordered logic are nowhere to be found in today’s highly
subjective, post-Truth society. His arguments may have been compelling in the
19th c. (“..and so you see”, “…you must admit,” etc.), but today’s
skim-and-scan readers dismiss logical progression as belonging to a stodgy
egghead crowd. Logic isn’t the final authority—one’s feelings are. As a result,
in our day, the antiquated structure of formal logic is lumbering inexorably
towards the sheer cliff of “who cares?” Walker is essentially preaching to the
choir and writing in a sealed chamber—each logical argument is based on the
precarious belief that there’s a one-size-fits-all human behavior pattern. Ergo,
God created a system of religion to maximize its effectiveness based on that
predictable and in fact, God-designed pattern. It’s all a fine-tuned, inevitable
cosmic cause-and-effect where God Himself is logically constrained by His own
decrees and creation.
Most cornered atheists
would probably admit they’ve never taken the time to construct experiential
proof for their belief system. Their spiritually null state often stems from
shattered illusions, painful family trauma and/or a hedonistic discarded of the
repressions that represent God. It’s a “Santa suit in the basement” moment for
many. Once setting forth on a godless sea, no amount of rational discourse is going to
turn that ship around.
The
problem isn’t a lack of logically presented information—Walker’s stance
notwithstanding—it’s spiritual deafness. 1 Corinthians 2:14 clearly states: “The person without the
Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but
considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are
discerned only through the Spirit.”
Convincing someone
they need a Savior via higher criticism, as the apostle Paul discovered, can be
disappointing work. After listening to Paul’s irrefutable logic, King Herod Agrippa
witheringly remarked, “You almost persuade me, Paul.” Another rationalist
listener, Judean governor Festus, reacted less calmly. “You are out of your
mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you
insane." (Acts 26:24)
Let’s
see if the 21st century rationalist approach of Ravi Zacharias, the
foremost Christian apologetic of the age, fares better. I’ll be reviewing his
response to the foremost contemporary atheistic text in my next post.
“Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou
persuadest me to be a Christian.” Acts 26:28
No comments:
Post a Comment