This text is yet another in a long line of publications that mines the bible for insights concerning how humans should treat animals. Grumett’s angle takes up the topic of animal husbandry, that is domesticated animals raised for human use (i.e. food, clothing, etc.) in farm and ranch settings. His thesis is “For both Christians and non-Christians, viewing these animals in husbandry systems that were extensive and unmechanized encourages a renewed focus on the animals themselves, including their biological needs and normal behaviors, rather than on animals as products and as sources of products.” He continues arguing that biblical accounts tell non-believers that the bible is not anthropocentric and that sometimes humans are even required to treat animals properly (p.2).

Grummett supports his thesis in the following four chapters, each of which takes up a different aspect of animal welfare that he believes scripture supports. Chapter 1, Herds and Flocks, explores the collective behavior of animals (i.e. sheep and cattle) and how their group behavior impacts their individual and collective well-being. Grumett argues that biblical writings recognize the social element of herd animals in contrast with contemporary ranching systems (p.6). Grumett employs Augustine’s argument that animals are givers of signs, as evidence for the notion that animals are more than creatures to satisfy human needs (p.8). He cites various biblical passages, such as Luke 2:8, that the bible is aware of the collective nature of herd animals. Strangely, Grumett attempts to extend the argument to pigs and chickens even while acknowledging the latter is absent in scripture and the other is rarely mentioned (pp. 16-17). Unfortunately, his appeal to the biblical evidence fails to distinguish between when the biblical writer is describing something and when he is prescribing something (p. 9).

Grumett then proceeds to discuss the sexual and young rearing behaviors of herd animals noting that these practices play an important part in their well-being. Readers will likely find the attention to allegedly non-heterosexual behavior of these animals to be nothing short of bizarre. His comment that readers will find these behaviors “…differing from commonly accepted norms.” (p. 18) to be an understatement. Interestingly, while his thesis is that animal behavior is to teach humans (p.10,18), he does not follow through on how this alleged homosexual behavior in animals is to teach us.

In Chapter 2, Bodies, Grumett argues that the biblical testimony and scientific research condones the practice of maintaining the bodily integrity of the farm animals. Where the prior chapter heralded the value of inter-animal relationships, this chapter argues that the bodies of individual animals should be maintained in their original form. Practices, such as castration, tail docking, nose ringing, debeaking, etc. should be abandoned because they are not supported by Scripture. While conceding that sometimes good husbandry practices may require violating the bodily integrity of an animal, it should only be done if absolutely necessary, meaning that alternative options have been eliminated (p. 51).

Grumett bases this opinion on the sacrificial law that forbids sacrificing blemished animals (Exod 12:5; 29:1; pp. 31, 37). Since the Hebrew word Tamim, (unblemished) means that castrated animals were not permissible sacrifices (cf. Lev 22:19, 24-5), Grumett contends Israelites conformed their ranching practices to align with this law. Unfortunately, he does not provide any evidence for this assertion. Perhaps his awareness of this evidentiary gap explains why he spent so much space discussing the negative impacts of common husbandry practices that violate an animal’s bodily integrity.

Chapter 3, Behavior, turns our attention to where (i.e. habitat) and how (i.e. eating, moving and playing) animals live their lives. Basing his argument in the creation narrative of Genesis 1, Grumett says “It is notable that the animals are assigned habitats that are all outdoors, and that at no future point is any other norm established.” (p. 54). He continues to say that if animals are to be kept indoors there must be substantive reasons for doing so. Ultimately, Grumett believes that the biblical suggestion, if not an explicit norm, is for farmers to raise animals is as freely as possible so the animals can experience the fulness of their behavioral characteristics. Interestingly, while he is aware that the bible speaks of stall-fed calves (pp.57ff) noting Amos’ condemnation (6:4), Christ’s reference to the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:23) is conspicuously ignored.

The final chapter, Stockpersons, looks at the role of the animal caretakers. He asserts that Israel’s husbandry was philosophically/religiously different than that of her pagan neighbors in that she treated animals objectively. Animals were not sources of spiritual strength for Israelites (pp. 69-70). Since the dominion narratives are troublesome for Grumett, he attempts to downplay their impact by suggesting there were exceptions to the top-down coercive authority scheme between humans and animals (p. 71). Unfortunately, the exceptions employed to illustrate his point all involve human to human subjugation, not human to animal. Nevertheless, he continues arguing that the human-animal relationship is covenantal (p.75) and goes into some detail about different aspects of the stockperson-animal bond and its importance.

Grumett describes one rather strange example of the human-animal bond, namely when the stockperson is seen as a member of the herd. Grumett claims that such a blurring of the human-animal distinction can be found in the story of Rachel putting goat skin on Jacob (pp. 84-85; Gen 27:11-23). He ends the chapter suggesting that ranchers should safeguard, if not reestablish, the bond between stockperson and livestock that has been marred/threatened by contemporary livestock practices.

The book ends with a three-page Epilogue where Grumett reminds readers that the bible has more to say about animal agriculture than what is traditionally thought. In addition, scripture sees animals as having their own intrinsic (versus utilitarian) worth which should be respected. Interestingly, he only claims that humans should work harder to treat animals well rather than the typical animal rights call for ending animal husbandry and adopt veganism.

Grumett’s reading of scripture through the lens of animal husbandry, informed by modern science, is certainly a worthy approach. The manifold truths contained in scripture can often only be appreciated when we narrow the scope of our attention to a particular perspective. For making readers aware of that approach, Grumett is to be commended. While astute readers will hear the echoes of an animal protectionist perspective, if not an animal rights one, Grumett refuses to condemn animal husbandry outright. In this he differs from other readers of scripture from the animal protectionist perspective.

While adopting a perspectival approach to probe scripture is useful, it can never have the final say. The method should never be privileged as being the only way they look at the text. For elevating an approach to ex cathedra status can easily result in distortions to the authorial meaning. Take the example of one of my seminary professors who cautioned us not to overread the meaning of a word during lexical analysis. He used the example of interpreting a letter. We traditionally start with “Dear….” He noted that if we read too much into the word ‘Dear’, we might think the writer was extremely fond of us. If we were researching love literature, we might think that every letter starting with “Dear…” is a love letter. Regrettably, Grumett allowed his animal welfare approach to biblical data about livestock animals to blind him to alternative views and contrary data.

Permit me to provide just a couple of examples to illustrate. Grumett conveniently ignores biblical data that counters his perspective. For example, in the reference to muzzling the ox (p. 60), he doesn’t engage Paul who clearly argued that God’s concern wasn’t about animal welfare (1 Cor 9:9). In fact, his scripture index does not even list a passage from 1 Corinthians (p. 108). Likewise, he ignores Christ’s use of the fatted calf in the story about the Prodigal Son, despite spending two pages on the subject (pp. 57-58) telling us that the bible suggests such activity is less than ideal. Wouldn’t Jesus, the author of Scripture, know not to use a fatted calf in a positive light? Or how should Christ’s treatment of the herd of pigs be interpreted? Did Christ’s decision to allow them to be demonized and then drowned demonstrate proper stewardship of domestic animals (Matt 8:30ff; Mark 5:11ff; Luke 8:32ff)? Finally, Grumett argues that modifying an animal’s body is wrong. But what about an owner whose ox likes to gore (Ex 21:29)? Is it better for the owner to cut the horns or should the ox just be killed and eaten? Grumett does not tell us.

The second problem with the book lies in the manner of Grumett’s argumentation. While the tone is suggestive and non-dogmatic, Grumett frequently draws conclusions and makes connections without filling in the evidentiary or logical steps. He claims that Amos 6:4 condemns stall fed calves (p. 58). While acknowledging the financial angle of Amos’ condemnation, Grumett continues to suggest that stall-feeding calves was inherently wrong. Unfortunately, this claim is asserted not proven (see also the animal play argument p. 64).

Grumett frequently confuses what the bible portrays with what it proffers. On page 54, he appeals to the creation narratives regarding animal habitats as being outdoors (versus indoors). But the question is where else would recently created animals be (other than outdoors) until Adam and Eve could begin to initiate the creation mandate? I live in Montana’s cattle country. During our winter storms, I would suggest that the herd would definitely prefer to be “indoors” rather than unrestrained in the field during an ice storm. But is it morally wrong or a violation of our dominion mandate to keep cattle in the field? Regrettably, Grumett’s failure to connect the logical steps and provide the needed evidence to reach his animal-welfare conclusions leaves readers wanting.

By now readers should understand that this book is entirely inadequate to the task it had taken up. While we can thank Grumett for raising the issue of biblical testimony and livestock production, we will have to look elsewhere for answers that can be faithful to the biblical witness and withstand fair-minded scrutiny.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: https://wipfandstock.com/9798385218592/the-bible-and-farm-animal-welfare/

Matthew A. King is the cofounder and president of the Christian Animal Rights Association, an organization dedicated to ending animal cruelty and exploitation. King believes that Christianity’s historic support for eating meat and animal use stems from an incorrect understanding of the biblical testimony. The title of the book is taken from Hosea 2:18 which says,

“In that day I will also make a covenant for them
With the beasts of the field,
The birds of the sky
And the creeping things of the ground.
And I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land,
And will make them lie down in safety.” (NASB)

King employs the standard Christian virtues of sacrificial giving, love of neighbor and alleged vegan diet of the Garden of Eden to ground his animal-friendly ethic. Like other Christian animal rights activists, King contends that God’s original plan was for humans and animals to live in non-exploitative harmony where human rulership was characterized as servant, perhaps sacrificial, non-consumptive leadership over animals and that God’s future plan is to restore a world with animal-human harmony (Isa 11:6-9; 65:25 and Hosea 2:18 (p.xiii). One of King’s contributions to the Christian animal rights movement is his moral rubric called the New Earth Abolition (NEA) that organizes the principles of human-animal relations. The NEA consists of three pillars namely, 1. Treat animals the way you would like to be treated (Matt 7:12; 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 6:31; 10:27), 2. Humans should serve animals not exploit them (Mk 9:35; Philp 2:3-4) and 3. Humans should foster harmony with animals and between animals (Gen 1:20-30; p.23).

King, however, does not believe the traditional arguments (e.g., respect for weaker/lesser creatures) for animal rights go far enough to press and justify the proper treatment of animals. He believes that animals must be recognized as “persons” and thus of equal moral status as humans. To support this radical contention (at least from a “Christian” perspective), King appeals to Scripture’s use of nephesh hayah (living soul) and scientific evidence regarding animal sentience.

The behavioral implications of King’s philosophy for Christian ethics is as far reaching as it is shocking. As expected, he opposes consumption of animal products (e.g., meat, eggs, milk, etc.). But surprisingly, even honey is banned from the list of allowed foods (p. 24). In like manner, King believes that insects must be left alone because they have individual personalities and a fluid that is analogous to blood (pp. 95-6). He breaks with some animal rights activists by accepting the legitimacy of dogs and cats as domestic animals. However, owners must feed their dogs a vegan diet so as not to run afoul of principle 3 of the NEA (p.34). In a concession to reality, he acknowledges that cats must still be fed meat because they are “obligate carnivores”. He hopes someday laboratory meat will be available to resolve even this ethical concession.

I agree with King’s belief that animal treatment is an important topic that should be based in a proper understanding of scientific inquiry and biblical interpretation. Regrettably, King’s reach for a resolution far outdistanced his grasp. His work suffers from several key weaknesses, each of which is terminal in its effect.

First, King fails to read broadly enough to fully understand and appreciate the monumental difficulty of justifying an animal rights position biblically and scientifically. For example, if he had read my book, Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2012), he would have known that Adam and Eve could have killed animals while still being vegans (cf. kabash, “subdue” Gen 1:28). In similar fashion, King seems unaware of how human-wildlife conflicts constitute a significant threat to human health, safety and food security both in ancient times and today.

Second, King’s interpretation of Scripture at times is so forced that one wonders whether his reading would be recognized by the original author. For example, on pages 72-73, King argues that John 10:11 (I am the good shepherd) is not just a metaphor of Christ’s care for humans but a literal statement of Christ’s service to animals. Another example of strained exegesis can be seen on p. 77 where he discusses the Gerasene demoniac and the drowning of pigs. It never seems to occur to King that Christ can still be charged with animal cruelty for allowing demons to possess innocent and sentient animals (cf. p. 49). King’s inability to accept the text at face value as shown in his treatment of Isaiah 25:6 (pp. 81-82) causes one to wonder what wording the Bible would have had to use to convince King that eating animals was acceptable to God.

One can only hope that King and his supporters will eventually take the time to read more deeply and broadly. King should not have written a book until he truly understood the arguments and claims of the traditional Christian view on animals. To understand before one criticizes exemplifies the Golden Rule, which unfortunately he does more for animals than those who believe in the traditional view. Christians interested in reading an animal rights perspective should look elsewhere as this book lacks the research and argument worthy of one’s time.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: https://wipfandstock.com/9781666700275/i-will-abolish-the-bow/

In our urban-dominated landscape, hunting, particularly sport hunting, has increasingly been viewed as a remnant of a barbaric era that is no longer needed and should be abolished. Clearly there is a cultural divide between hunters and anti-hunters. Hill and White sought to deepen their understanding of this intellectual and ideological divide and investigated how Christians have understood and understand their faith in regards to sport hunting. As Hill clearly says, “… this collection of essays was to provide a window into the different perspectives held historically by Christians in relation to sport hunting and to hear new voices on the debate. … The secondary goal was to encourage its readers to thoughtfully consider the various perspectives, many times not set in clear apposition, and the merits (and weaknesses) of each” (p.411). In brief, the book clearly accomplishes its goals.

Before delving into the text, readers should know that I was a contributor to this volume. My article, “Dominion Over Animals: Taking the Scriptural Witness and Worldview Seriously” (pp.33-348) summarizes my dissertation published in Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations, Wipf and Stock, 2009. My engagement with the specific contributions made by my fellow contributors to this volume occurred only after the book was published.

The editors did a superb job providing readers with an overall perspective on the topic. Their writing not only helped prepare readers to grasp the major themes and controversies, but their summaries of the articles enhanced reader pre-understanding and thus apprehension of the material. Heuristically, the book (both sections 1 and 2) stand as a model for educational best practice. I would note, however, that Hill’s contention that Christianity was a syncretistic religion (p.23) reflects a modernistic comparative religions bias and not the testimony handed down by Christ’s apostles.

The articles are organized into two major sections. Section One takes a descriptive approach to the debate over recreational hunting. Articles focus on historical attitudes and perspectives held by Christians over the centuries, starting with the biblical text and culminating with interviews of contemporary Christian hunters. The articles show how Christians argued both for and against sport hunting. Articles often described prevalent views by the way “Nimrod” of Genesis was portrayed in the literature. Interestingly, when hunting was in vogue, Nimrod was portrayed as a neutral or valuable character. When hunting was not in vogue, Nimrod became a term of derision and symbol of moral turpitude.

The second article entitled, “A Dying Legacy?: A Century of Hunting in the Stories of Texas Families”, Hill provides a sort of meta-analysis of the interviews contained in the following chapter. He keenly identifies key themes, concepts and sociological factors that impact one’s adoption (or lack) of hunting. If one wishes to have a quick, but not simplistic, look at the cultural-historical issues embedded in the hunting experience, this article is must reading. Though it focuses on the American, albeit Texas, experience, I suspect that the categories and insights will be useful elsewhere in the United States if not the world. The third article is actually a collection of interviews. These interviews are valuable for providing a more granular look at the motivations behind the desire to hunt as told by various hunters who claim a Christian heritage.

Section Two contains articles addressing the ethical or prescriptive views on hunting. Authors from both sides of the debate use a variety of rationales to support their position for or against the morality of hunting. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the emphasis focused on the justification (or lack thereof) for the killing of animals for “fun”.

Two articles that attempted to use Christian theology to condemn hunting (Killing and the Kingdom: A Case against Sport Hunting” by Shawn Graves and “Muscular Christianity and Sport Hunting: Missing the Target?” by John B. White were quite disappointing. Both ostensibly tried to use Christian teaching to condemn hunting but neither dealt with the concrete realities and teaching of the Biblical text. Their arguments reminded me of Supreme Court justices that attempt to argue that capital punishment violates the U.S. Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishments clause even though the authors of the Constitution clearly supported the death penalty. Any rational reading of the constitution clearly reveals that the authors were only referring to cruel execution methods such as Drawing and Quartering, etc., not to a condemnation of execution in general. Grave’s approach tended to avoid Scripture entirely choosing instead to rely on the vague notion of not causing harm. White’s article, on the other hand, argued that God’s intention was for humans to not kill animals. It never occurred to these scholars to even consider the ontological status of animals. If they did, the anti-hunting authors would perhaps understand that harm to an animal is categorically different (morally speaking) than harm to a person. (I suspect they would both grant that fact but apparently, they did not consider the full impact of that view). If God grants humans permission to kill His property, who are we to say that somehow violates God’s will? Neither of them considered how Christ was quite comfortable killing animals, sometimes for no apparent reason other than to demonstrate he could (e.g., miracle of the fishes). Dismissing this by saying that Jesus was God (though true) does not resolve the problem because Jesus was also the perfect human who provided an example of a sinless life before God.

Regrettably, Christian anti-hunters continue to commit two key mistakes that I have repeatedly pointed out over the years. First, they have either an inability or unwillingness to read literature that disagrees with their perspective. Not every scholarly article is found in top tier (often liberal) journals. Second, they are unwilling to consider the whole testimony of Scripture. Instead, Christian anti-hunters find a generic passage, such as “reconciling all things” and then use that generic principle to truck in every idea that fits their narrative even when specific passages counter those ideas. By rejecting or perhaps ignoring the principle of the general rule is constrained by the specific, they allow themselves to fly off into fanciful arguments without sufficient grounding in the Word of God.

Overall, this book provides an important contribution to the topic of sport hunting that is scholarly, yet accessible to college-level readers.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: https://www.mupress.org/God-Nimrod-and-the-World-Exploring-Christian-Perspectives-on-Sport-Hunting-P952.aspx

Hope and Community constitutes the fifth and final of the planned volumes for Kärkkäinen’s opus, A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World. Constructive theology is different from traditional systematic and dogmatic theologies in that constructive theologies are purposely interconfessional, interdisciplinary and interreligious and intercultural (cf. p. xvii). Less attention is paid to biblical and exegetical issues and more to engaging with the “truths” and perspectives of those outside one’s group. Kärkkäinen believes that truth can be found outside of Christianity and that external perspectives are useful in helping us understand our own beliefs more fully. For readers, accustomed to foundationalist approaches to theology, Kärkkäinen’s coherentist approach can be quite disorienting. Nevertheless, those, willing to be led on this journey with no defined destination will find the path full of thought-provoking insights both for Christian theology and their understanding of the great religions of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

Like other volumes, Kärkkäinen disrupts the typical sequence of topics by discussing eschatology (i.e., hope) before the church (i.e., community). How much that disruption helps reorient readers, I will let readers decide for themselves. Part 1 delves into the topic of hope or eschatology. He discusses eschatology regarding three spheres, personal and communal, human and cosmic, and present and future (p.17). As is characteristic of constructive theologies, Kärkkäinen investigates how science understands the end. He accepts Science’s negative predictions based on a Neo-Malthusian understanding of humanity’s impact on creation. But Kärkkäinen should be commended for reminding scientists that they often make non-scientific statements as they move to metaphysical ones. He then reviews, in a non-critical manner, how eschatological themes are taken up by Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

In chapter 7, Kärkkäinen addresses the ecofeminist criticism that Christianity’s focus on the afterlife allowed her members to ignore/degrade the present condition of the planet. He correctly rejects the notion that belief in the afterlife requires a rejection of the present but grants too much weight to the socialist’s critique of capitalism and biocentrism’s critique of anthropocentrism as sources of environmental degradation. Though Kärkkäinen’s reading list is enormous, he neglected to read works sufficiently critical of the so-called environmental movement such as my own, Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (2009) or by E. Calvin Beisner to name two. The fact is many of the nations who have degraded their environments have anti-Christian cultures allowing rampant corruption along with the lack of economic freedom required by capitalism.

On the thorny subject of heaven and hell, Kärkkäinen offers what he calls “hopeful universalism”. He is hopeful that God will provide a way for all to accept Christ without violating the personal choice of those who persist in rejecting him. Those of a Calvinistic persuasion will find much to critique in this chapter.

Kärkkäinen addresses other topics such as the church’s nature (i.e. triumphant vs militant) and her offices. Surprisingly, he does not even believe that the Bible mandates any particular offices in the first place. But if there are to be offices, women should have equal access to hold them. Sadly, the lack of exegetical discussion diminished the force of his views for this reader.

In this final volume, Kärkkäinen does take a few pages to revisit his methodology (pp. 1-4). He reiterates his commitment to a post-foundationalist (i.e. coherentist) theory of truth. He affirms the necessity of integrating insights from outside one’s faith to help reduce, but not eliminate, the inherent biases of our cultural-historical conditionedness. Kärkkäinen is certainly a careful thinker, who seeks to avoid the traps and naivete of arbitrary dogmatisms. But he made a couple of comments that were troubling to me. On page 2 he writes, “… we hasten to add that we humans never have a direct, uncontested access to the infinitely incomprehensible God.” I appreciate where he is probably coming from, that there is a distinction between how we perceive something versus the nature of the thing itself, but can a Christian affirm that? Did Paul when he was taken to the third heaven have direct access to God? What about Paul’s Damascus Road encounter? Perhaps more troubling is the statement from page 3 which says, “That tradition, however, is neither a straitjacket that limits creative pursuit of knowledge nor a basis for mere repetition and defense.” I would agree that tradition is not a straitjacket as that is too restrictive. But tradition does act as a guard rail on the road that tells us the absolute limits of orthodoxy. Jude 3 assumes that there is a tradition, a body of faith that is fixed. Accept it or deny it but don’t tweak it. I would simply ask, “Are Christians called to be creative or faithful?” I wonder if academics, under pressure to always say something new, are too often motivated to be creative at the expense of faithfulness. We can be creative but in our presentation, not the substance. Ultimately, we must ask ourselves, “What is the substance of the faith that empowers us to evangelize like the Apostles did?” If we make that faith too uncertain, too squishy, too historicized, what is there left to care about let alone share with the world?

To conclude, I thought I would highlight several benefits that readers can glean from this series.

1. Categories. Kärkkäinen provides readers with lots of helpful categories and distinctions on a range of topics. These alone are worth the price of the series.
2. Engagement with world religions. Kärkkäinen has done some heavy lifting by outlining the beliefs of various religions and how they relate to similar areas within Christianity. If you are interested in inter-religious dialogue or apologetics, you would do well to get started here.
3. Science and Christianity. Though the series is not focused on science and religion, Kärkkäinen’s engagement of cutting-edge scientific theories/speculations are helpful introductions to some very arcane, but important, topics. His analysis of time/space, and mind/brain are particularly noteworthy.
4. Lack of Evangelical shibboleths. If you wish to learn how to write about Christian theology while avoiding Evangelical buzzwords or fighting words, then Kärkkäinen’s volumes will lead the way.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Preview Hope and Community: https://books.google.com/books/about/Hope_and_Community.html?id=eCxbDwAAQBAJ

Publisher’s page: https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6857/hope-and-community.aspx

Read Stephen M. Vantassel’s reviews of all five books in Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s series A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World:

Volume 1: Christ and Reconciliation

Volume 2: Trinity and Revelation

Volume 3: Creation and Humanity

Volume 4: Spirit and Salvation

Volume 5: Hope and Community

As a constructive theologian, Kärkkäinen works to create a coherent explanation of religious belief (in this case Christian) by honest engagement with a variety of voices, including Christian (i.e. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, third-world, feminist and mainline.), non-Christian (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist), and scientific. In this sense, Kärkkäinen’s work is negatively described as non-foundational and non-dogmatic and positively as inclusive and dialogical flowing from an attitude of hospitality. This text is Kärkkäinen’s fourth of five installments in the development of that coherent theology.

As in the previous volume, Kärkkäinen divides this work into two main but interrelated topics, the Spirit (third person of the trinity) and Salvation. Readers are cautioned that while this project gives the appearance of a systematic theology, it is not a typical one. Kärkkäinen’s approach engages questions that have been neglected by traditional theologies as well as discusses questions typically never asked. In light of this non-traditional approach, readers must read Kärkkäinen’s ideas carefully lest they make premature judgments about what is being proffered.

Chapter 2 is where Kärkkäinen discusses the theology of the Spirit in earnest. He properly reviews some key theological points concerning the Spirit and then delves into the challenge of the filioque. Following a brief historical-theological discussion of the debate surrounding the topic, he ultimately concludes that the clause can be removed or amended in a manner that satisfies the eastern church without undermining the Spirit’s place in the Godhead.

In part 2, Salvation, the author reviews different steps of the Ordo Salutis. He is somewhat critical of the way the topic has been historically discussed, noting that the early church did not investigate the steps of salvation and that the church (Reformational?) had not paid sufficient attention to the role the Spirit played in salvation.

As with other doctrines, Kärkkäinen surveys how other major religions conceive of salvation, noting areas of agreement and divergence. What is useful about these explorations of other faiths is that readers can discover different illustrations and descriptions to articulate Christian doctrine. In this regard, this theological series can jump start a theologian’s entry into understanding non-Christian religions.

As a relatively newcomer to Calvinism, I had difficulty reading Kärkkäinen’s treatment of the doctrines of grace as taught by Reformed theologians. My challenge lay not with the author’s rejection of TULIP, but the nagging suspicion that his characterization of the system was not fully accurate. I will leave the ultimate verdict to those more grounded in Calvinism than myself. But I will say that very little attention was paid to the exegetical foundation of Calvinism’s view of salvation. This was disappointing. For even though Kärkkäinen is correct that Calvinistic understanding of salvation is somewhat absent in the church fathers, that fact does not by itself answer the question of whether Calvinism’s view of salvation is correct.

Chapter 12 covers the often-neglected topic of healing, restoration and empowerment. Kärkkäinen is to be commended for discussing the healing work of God and the thorny question of baptism of the Holy Spirit. While rejecting cessationism, he does not accept the Pentecostal notion that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is always subsequent to conversion. He strangely accepts the sacramentalist notion that Spirit baptism can, but not exclusively, occur at the event of water baptism. Here, as in his treatment of salvation, a greater focus on key scriptures would have been helpful.

At times, however, the theological discussion seemed quite disconnected from a biblical foundation. I often had this nagging suspicion that key theological issues (e.g. justification/sanctification) whose edges are established by scripture were weakened or ignored in order to bridge divides toward an ecumenism. I could be wrong. Perhaps the resources Kärkkäinen appeals to provide the evidence for his positions. But by not providing that evidence in his volume he undermines the impact of his argument. Readers interested in ecumenical and constructive theology will find much in this book and Kärkkäinen’s previous volumes to stimulate and challenge ideas. The breadth of his reading across the major religions and leading lights in mainline Christian theology is truly remarkable. Sadly, the author paid little attention to evangelical theologians and so should be read with that understanding.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6856/spirit-and-salvation.aspx

Preview Spirit and Salvation: https://books.google.com/books/about/Spirit_and_Salvation.html?id=EIy9CwAAQBAJ

Read Stephen M. Vantassel’s reviews of all five books in Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s series A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World:

Volume 1: Christ and Reconciliation

Volume 2: Trinity and Revelation

Volume 3: Creation and Humanity

Volume 4: Spirit and Salvation

Volume 5: Hope and Community

In this second volume, Torrance and McCall have collected 16 articles exploring the implications for science and theology regarding Christ’s incarnation and role as creator and sustainer of the universe (Col 1:15-17). As in the first volume, the text lacks a unified theology. However, for scientists, theologians, philosophers, and researchers interested in tackling ideas of science and faith as they intersect in the person and work of Jesus, this text would be a worthy place to begin. For if you are not interested in the focus of one article, simply turn a few pages and an entirely different focus will be explicated in the next.

The book opens with a splendid, and dare I say, must-read introduction by the editors, where they set the table for the articles that follow. The articles are organized into four sections, theological perspectives, biblical and historical perspectives, philosophical perspectives and scientific perspectives. This organization is helpful in relating to the reader what the writer’s point of view is. Nevertheless, in each case, authors bring, to varying degrees and intensities, their Christian faith into the discussion. In other words, the authors are not disinterested and objective writers but are those writing from a faith position. I have spotlighted a handful of publications to help readers in getting a sense of the diversity of topics and will end with some summary observations.

Murray Rae’s article, “Jesus Christ, the Order of Creation”, opens the Theological Perspectives section by arguing that science’s understanding of reality and the explanation given by Scripture (Col 1:15-17; 1 Cor 8:6, etc.) can be reconciled by recognizing that explanation for phenomena can occur at differing levels. He uses the music of Chopin to illustrate how science can explain a song by looking at the notes, and theology explains by looking at the score. As valuable as this heuristic is, Rae recognizes that we must also consider the impact that sin has fractured our world so that the score is in a sense broken. Nevertheless, God has left enough of the score intact to let us see the beauty and a glimmer of the ultimate purpose.

Brian Brock’s “Jesus Christ the Divine Animal?: The Human Distinctive Reconsidered” responds to Darwin’s denial that humans are qualitatively different from animals by reframing the issue. Brock contends that looking for something intrinsically different in humans when compared to animals, is a dead end. Rather, we should look extrinsically, namely to our relationship with God. From this perspective, Brock believes that evolution and a high view of scripture (i.e. Genesis story) may be reconciled while avoiding ensnarement with other problems such as the presence of evil. Brock’s idea here is an interesting rephrasing of the functional view of human identity (Gen 1:28).

The problem of evil is addressed in Brian Curry’s “Christ, Creation and the Powers: Elements in a Christian Doctrine of Creation.” Curry contends that the typical binary discussion of God and creation fails to account for the biblical testimony, which includes a third element, the evil powers. The presence of evil powers is necessary because scripture says that God is not satisfied with creation. God continues to work towards redemption and fights the powers to achieve those ends. Curry provocatively says that science can be a power that both enslaves and benefits its users. Readers will be stimulated by Curry’s forceful discussion, but some may be put off by the apparent leaning toward open theism.

In recent decades, the long struggle between science and theology has intensified, forcing Christian theologians to increase their attention on the doctrine of creation. The challenge facing theologians was is how to correlate and contextualize biblical teaching concerning creation with the findings of contemporary science. The effort is difficult because of the diversity and complexity of the issues which include how we got here, the relationship between revelation and reason, free-will and providence, and biblical teaching about nature. Knowing Creation (vol 1.) addresses these subjects through 16 articles by scholars from prestigious schools who self-identify as Christian. The editors explicitly sought to make the book interdisciplinary, arguing that too often academics become siloed in their field (p.18).

The book is organized into four sections each containing four articles: Theological Perspectives, Biblical and Historical Perspectives, Philosophical Perspectives and Scientific Perspectives. While the editors wisely decided to organize the articles by theme or emphasis, readers should understand that some of the categorizations were arbitrary. For example, Mark Harris’ article, “’The Trees of the Field Shall Clap Their Hands’ (Isaiah 55:12): What Does It Mean to Say That a Tree Praises God?” is placed in the Scientific Perspectives section but could have easily been placed in the Biblical and Historical Perspectives.

Given the diversity of topics covered in this text, an integrated review is impossible. So rather than write on all 16 articles, attention will be placed on a few select papers taken from each of the sections.

Section 1 Theological Perspectives

Simon Oliver’s article, “Every Good Gift is from Above” discusses the relationship between culture and nature and how the often-touted dichotomy between nature and culture is problematic (p. 31). In this, Oliver is spot on. The idea that nature is to be understood as non-human assumes an improper understanding of both nature and humanity. In short, it is a false dualism. Oliver contends that viewing creation as a gift from God helps overcome this dualism. He explains this by employing Marcel Mauss’ conception of gifts and giving. Oliver concludes by arguing that food unites culture and nature. He then continues to tease out the implications of the aforementioned premise by drawing on biblical narratives showing how food is strongly associated with reconciliation and communion (i.e. fellowship). In this way, food is both a gift and an offering. Oliver concludes by drawing attention to how food production is tied to much of the environmental problems of our day. Recognizing the interplay between food and culture highlights the importance of creation in our lives and in the biblical narrative.

Oliver’s insights are rather abstract and tend to arrive at theological conclusions that are at times a bit tendentious. Nevertheless, his ideas are stimulating and worthy of engagement.

As a constructive theologian, Kärkkäinen works to create a coherent explanation of religious belief (in this case, Christian) by honest engagement with a variety of voices, including Christian (i.e. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, third-world, feminist, Evangelical etc.), non-Christian (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist), and scientific. In this sense, Kärkkäinen’s work is non-foundational and non-dogmatic. He says, citing Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology that, “…theology, must check the “correspondence” of its statements with both inner and external statements.” (p.3.) This text is Kärkkäinen’s third of five installments in the development of that coherent theology.

The book divides into two main parts. Part 1 discusses creation and Part 2 covers humanity. Discussion of angelic beings, demonic and sacred are not addressed in this volume. Kärkkäinen, like many Christians, believes that the historic Christian view of Creation requires reappraisal both to correct the Church’s reliance on dualism (body/spirit; secular/sacred; p.9), and to respond to the pending environmental collapse and the findings of science (p.10). After orienting the reader to his approach, Kärkkäinen discusses how science and theology should relate. In his usual way, Kärkkäinen engages the subject by explaining how various religious faiths relate to scientific inquiry. As mentioned in my reviews of earlier volumes, Kärkkäinen faithfully describes various belief systems and avoids caricatures or straw men. Readers will frequently find his rubrics to be helpful in articulating and categorizing various viewpoints. For instance, his review of the different types of scientific naturalism in Chapter 2 and perspectives on nature in Chapter 3 are particularly instructive. While this reviewer believes that Kärkkäinen can be too generous with his interlocutors, readers can be assured that when he does criticize a viewpoint, his criticisms will be well founded.

Second, the author appears to accept the truth of evolution as a given. Therefore, he is obligated to spend a great deal of ink exploring ways to harmonize creation (theology) and evolution (science). This reviewer appreciated Kärkkäinen’s commitment to a divine purpose and action in creation as well as his thoughts on understanding divine action without falling into determinism (Chapters 6-7). On the downside, Kärkkäinen’s readiness to modify classical beliefs, such as God’s timelessness (pp.129ff), is troubling and indicates an excessive willingness to be swayed by contemporary winds.

In Part 2, Humanity, Kärkkäinen’s acceptance of evolutionary theory means that he must find a way to discuss humanity’s beginning, transmission of sin, and nature that accords with Scripture and science. He holds to a dynamic understanding of the “image of God” by emphasizing its social and communal nature, while not denying essentialist ideas.

This is the second volume in Kärkkäinen’s five-volume series developing a constructive Christian theology. Constructive theologies differ from systematic theologies by their use of a coherentist model of truth (in contrast to a foundationalist model of truth) and their fuller engagement with different faith traditions both within Christianity as well as without. The guiding assumption for constructive theologies is that other faith traditions contain information about God because God, whether through common grace or the direct work of the Holy Spirit, connects, influences, or reveals himself to people throughout the world. By engaging other traditions, theologians purposely avoid the solipsism and biases inherent to their own context and are challenged to think of new ways to understand and articulate their faith. The result of reflective thought on this process is the creation of a theology that is both contemporary and comprehensive.

Vern Poythress is uniquely qualified to write on the topic of theology and math because he holds terminal degrees in both subjects. Right from his introduction, Poythress admits that most people never think of connecting God and numbers. He hopes this book helps to change that because he believes that all human activity, including mathematics, should be performed as an act of worship.

In Part 1, Basic Issues, Poythress begins by discussing for math’s universality in all possible worlds. For example, is it not true that 2 + 2 = 4 is a true equation in all times and places? In this regard, Poythress shows that math shares characteristics with God, namely math too is omnipresent and eternal. He continues to argue for the divine characteristics of math by showing how math works in the transcendent and immanent realms, that it is beautiful, and incomprehensible.

Poythress ends Part 1 describing how mathematics can accord with John Frame’s three perspectives on ethics, a heuristic device he uses throughout the remainder of the book. Poythress shows how mathematics connects with relationships between things, perspectives, logic, and even social sciences. Thus like God who created all of these items, math too connects with all. The effect of Poythress’s argument in Part 1 is that Christians have another argument in favor of not just theism, but Trinitarian theism.  Though doubtful that it will have a powerful effect for apologetic purposes, I have little doubt that Poythress’s approach will help Christians think in a more integrated fashion about how their faith connects with the created world.

Vern S. Poythress

Part 2, Our Knowledge of Mathematics, addresses the philosophical issues of transcendence/immanence and necessity/contingency. Is God connected with numerical truth (immanence) or is he removed from that truth (transcendence)? Likewise, are mathematical truths necessary or are they contingent. Poythress shows how the Christian should conceive of these notions in contrast with the answers given by non-believers.

Part 3, Simple Mathematical Structures, discusses addition, sequences, multiplication, symmetries, and sets. Poythress repeatedly shows how mathematical conclusions are connected to the mind of God. In this way, we can trust the truthfulness of mathematical conclusions because God thinks them. Now Poythress doesn’t fall into the error that our thoughts are identical with God’s. He affirmed earlier that our knowledge is analogical. But Poythress rejects the notion that our limitations fail to have real meaning or value.

Part 4, Other Kinds of Numbers, delves into fractions, negative numbers, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, and infinity. In each of these cases, Poythress argues that they are not merely human inventions. These number show both the infiniteness of God as well as the limits of human thinking. Part 5, Geometry and Higher Mathematics, followed by a section entitled “Supplements” concludes the text. Poythress shows how math relates to space. He recognizes that geometry is an idealized representation of reality (i.e. no one can draw a perfectly straight line). But we can still have trust in the math because God ordained space and math.  The supplement section contains short essays discussing non-Christian philosophies of math and Christian theories of math respectively.

In the end, readers will find Poythress’s book evocative, encouraging them to think about the relationship between God and math. But those wishing a fuller explanation will have to consult additional books.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: https://www.crossway.org/books/redeeming-mathematics-tpb/