Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen is Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary.

From the publisher:

Kärkkäinen’s Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World is a five-volume project that aims to develop a new approach to and method of doing Christian theology in our pluralistic world at the beginning of the third millennium. Topics such as diversity, inclusivity, violence, power, cultural hybridity, and justice are part of the constructive theological discussion along with classical topics such as the messianic consciousness, incarnation, atonement, and the person of Christ.

With the metaphor of hospitality serving as the framework for his discussion, Kärkkäinen engages Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism in sympathetic and critical mutual dialogue while remaining robustly Christian in his convictions. Never before has a full-scale doctrinal theology been attempted in such a wide and deep dialogical mode.

From the Winter 2016 issue
Volume 1: Christ and Reconciliation
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christ and Reconciliation, A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World series, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013), 467 pages, ISBN 9780802868534.

From the Winter 2018 issue
Volume 2: Trinity and Revelation
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Revelation, A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 486 pages, ISBN 9780802868541.

From the Fall 2018 issue
Volume 3: Creation and Humanity
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Creation and Humanity, A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 3 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2015), pages x+554.

From the Spring 2020 issue
Volume 4: Spirit and Salvation
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation, A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2016), xi+498 pages, ISBN 9780802868565.

From the Summer 2020 issue
Volume 5: Hope and Community
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Hope and Community, A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Press, 2017), x+574 pages with indices.

Recognizing our creatureliness humbles us and teaches us to praise our Creator.

If the opinion polls are right, most of us believe God created the universe. We may argue about how long ago the Lord began creating or what methods He used, but most of us agree that God did it. In the U.S. and Canada, roughly half of the people who were surveyed take the Bible quite literally and reject Darwin’s theory that people evolved from lower forms of life.

OK, then, so we believe in divine creation. So what? What difference does it make that we believe in the Creator?

Image: Danist Soh

I have spent much time trying to offer to people solid reasons for believing in the Creator and for taking seriously the Bible’s account of creation, and showing how much of evolutionary theory is based more on dogmatic assumptions than on scientific data. But what difference does it make for our lives today? How do we live the truth of creation?

Belief in the Creator isn’t just a fact to be stored away in our mental filing cabinet. It’s not just a theory about something that God did a long time ago. A living faith in the Creator drastically affects the way we relate to Him.

How? First of all, it enables us to live with confidence in God. It allows us to trust Him for today and tomorrow, because we know that He is in charge. Instead of worrying, we should seek His kingdom and His righteousness, and leave the rest to Him (Matt. 6:25-34).

Our worries would be understandable if we believed that everything in the universe happened by pure chance, that there’s no plan for our lives, and that nobody’s in charge. But if we believe that the entire universe is God’s creation and that He continues to uphold and direct it (Heb. 1:3), then it’s time to stop worrying and start trusting.

Secondly, a living faith in the Creator gives us an attitude of gratitude. One of the Bible’s great songs about creation, Psalm 104, says, “He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate–bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart” (v. 14-15). Acts 14:17 says, “He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” The Bible makes it clear that God didn’t just get the universe going a long time ago. He’s the One who supplies every good thing right now (Jam. 1:17), and that calls for thankfulness on our part.

Unfortunately, though, it’s possible to believe the correct theories about creation and yet live as though we’ve earned everything we’ve got. Are you intelligent? “Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind?” (Job 38:36). Are you successful? “You may say to yourself, ‘My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.’ But remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth …” (Deut. 8:17-18). We wouldn’t have the ability to do anything if our Creator hadn’t given it to us.

If you and I believe in the Creator, pride has got to go. There’s only room for humble gratitude. We can only say thank-you to our Creator for giving us so many good things.

A living faith in our Creator also affects our relationship with God in terms of a sense of wonder and praise. Creation isn’t just an academic theory. Creation is a present reality. It’s a grand theater that displays God’s glory, and we should be ever applauding.

Psalm 104 is a beautiful song about God’s creation. It begins, “Praise the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, you are very great; you are clothed with splendor and majesty” (v. 1). The inspired writer sees God’s splendor in the dazzling brightness of the sun. He hears God’s power in the deep roar of the thunder. He sees God’s creativity and loving care in the sky and clouds, in meadows and mountains, in birds and fish. The writer is so full of awe and amazement that he ends by exclaiming, “May the glory of the Lord endure forever; may the Lord rejoice in his works … I will sing to the Lord all my life; I will sing praise to my God as long as I live” (v. 31,33).

So don’t just believe certain facts about creation. Experience the creation itself, and offer the Creator your wonder and praise. When you’re looking at a flower, watching a sunset, walking through a park, or hiking up a mountain, it’s a good time to praise the Creator and marvel at His greatness.

And the most amazing thing to me is this: God has birds to sing His praise, lions to roar His praise, elephants to trumpet His praise, breezes to whisper His praise, thunder to rumble His praise, and yet He also seeks praise from you and me, and He loves to hear it! Let’s pay attention to what the Lord has made, and praise Him for it!

So how about it? We say we believe in the truth of creation. But are we living the truth of creation?

This guest article originally appeared on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website in October 2008. Later included in the Spring 2022 issue.

Dr. Mary and Canon Pearson
Image: Kristin Smith, used by permission

Canon Mark Pearson and his wife, Dr. Mary, founded the NCHC in Plaistow, New Hampshire, in 1994 to serve the spiritually barren New England area. Mary was trained as an Osteopathic physician, and is the leader of the NCHC medical team, which now includes two nurse practitioners, counselors and other staff. Mark is the CEO and spiritual director of the center, leading Spirit-filled healing prayers and pastoral care at Trinity Church.

Canon Mark is a priest and canon of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC), one of the first of several “convergence” churches with an Anglican accent. That is, a church that attempts to unite historic liturgical and sacramental practices, the Evangelical love of Scripture and proclamation of the Gospel, and a Pentecostal appreciation and exercise of the gifts of the Spirit.

Mark Pearson was born and raised in the Boston area, received his undergraduate education in state at Williams College, and then an M.A. in theology from Oxford University (1973). He returned to the U.S. where he studied for the priesthood at Virginia Seminary and was ordained an Episcopal priest (1975). Fr. Pearson spent twenty years an Episcopal priest at several Episcopal churches.

Besides parish duties, he occupied much of his time attempting to bring biblical orthodoxy back to the Episcopal Church. He co-founded the Institute of Christian Renewal (ICR) in 1980 for that purpose.[3] Mark traveled extensively throughout the United States and worked with individual parishes and several Episcopal organizations, such as “Episcopalians United” and “Acts 29” to confront the growing apostasy of their denomination. The ICR continues to this day, headquartered out of the New Creation Healing Center, and like Trinity Church, legally distinct.

Fr. Pearson also taught healing courses and workshops at numerous churches, wrote multiple articles for Charisma as well as Sharing magazine, and taught a course on healing at Nashotah House Theological Seminary, an Episcopal seminary noted for its orthodoxy and traditionalism. Among the churches he influenced in regards to the healing ministry was Falls Church Anglican, highlighted in a previous article, where in 2001 he led a three day “mission” to teach and model healing prayer.[4] Mark also authored a major work on the Christian healing ministry that has an accent on the sacramental aspects of healing.[5]

Here is an example of a truly miraculous healing his prayer team prayed for back in 2004, witnessed by Mrs. Susan Gilbert:

About four years previously, I fell and broke my kneecap in three places. At that time the surgeon removed 2/3 of the kneecap, and tied the quadriceps to a hole drilled in the remaining small piece. As I was prying with the prayer team, there were some unusual movements below the knee and my quadriceps muscle went into spasms. I looked at it and discovered I appeared to have a whole kneecap!
I called Dr. Mary Pearson over, who examined both knees and found no difference between them. God graciously restored the knee to its proper shape … I can now kneel on the hard floor and I can even dance. I am more determined than ever to make sure lots of people know about God’s graciousness and healing power.[6]

However, the Episcopal Church and the UK and Canadian Anglican churches have been long plagued by divisions and separations starting at least as far back as the 1800s. The first of these splits related to liturgical and theological changes back in 1873, when the Reformed Episcopal Church left the Episcopal Church. In the 1960s, other churches also broke off from the Episcopal Church. These splits were mostly due in part to the liberal and even apostate drift in the Episcopal Church. For example, the “Death of God” theology of the 1960s, which was glamorized Deism, the heresy that God does not really interact with the church, and prayer is a psychological process that does not impact reality, etc.[7] Later, liberation theology gained a strong following in Episcopal seminaries and clergy. That theological movement glamorized Marxism and revolution, and did much damage in Latin America. The churches that split off in the 1960s are called “continuing churches” and most often are liturgical traditionalists, mostly using the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (not the 1979 version) and the 1940s hymnal. They all rejected the idea of ordaining women to the priesthood. There were several major continuing church groups, with different breaking points when they could no longer cross another line into heresy and wanted nothing more to do with the Episcopal hierarchy or seminaries.

As an Episcopal priest, Fr. Pearson took an interest in the developing Convergence movement. Even before he joined the CEC he was asked by Bishop Adler, founder and presiding bishop of the CEC, to be a CEC theological advisor. In fact, Bishop Adler at times has referred various times to Canon Mark Pearson as one of the co-founders of the CEC.

Pearson’s denomination, the CEC, and the other convergence denominations are relatively new, and do not consider themselves “continuing” denominations. These churches were founded in the 1990s by non-Anglican, Pentecostal and Vineyard pastors who loved the Episcopal liturgy but were appalled at what was going on in Episcopal seminaries, and would not submit to an unorthodox hierarchy.[8]

Bishop Adler, a Vineyard pastor for many years, established the CEC based on the idea of convergence (like Falls Church Anglican, he preferred the term “three streams” theology). Pastor Adler received a laying on of hands and ordination as Bishop (with Apostolic succession) by being ordained by Bishops from the Old Catholic Church, a group that separated from Roman Catholicism in the 1870s over the doctrine of Papal infallibility. He immediately brought in several congregations from California, and assumed that the growth of his denomination would be slow and steady. But in 1992 an article appeared in Ministries Today, an important Pentecostal/charismatic publication, which highlighted the CEC.[9] Bishop Adler received a flood of inquires and application from dissatisfied Episcopal priests, and Pentecostal ministers who wanted a liturgical structure added to their Pentecostalism.[10] CEC experienced very rapid expansion after this. In the last decades it had some “bumps along the road” which limited its further expansion, and in fact produced a contraction of churches and membership in the United States, but continued to grow overseas. However, that is a complex story to be told elsewhere.

In regard to Canon Pearson, after participating in CEC functions for two years, he and his wife left the Episcopal Church and were received into the CEC (1995). In his newsletter, Mark explained why he left the Episcopal Church where he had served faithfully for two decades.

Basic doctrines and moral teachings of historic Christianity are often denied or even ridiculed by church leaders. The phrases “inclusivity” and “a church in which there are no outcasts” are used by the liberal establishment, but many of the practices they are including are directly ruled out by Scripture.
…
The liberalism is so entrenched that the fight would have to be fierce. Many people do not have the disposition to fight. I’d rather spend the rest of my ministry proclaiming the Gospel, not dissipating my energy fighting.[11]

Mary Pearson is an osteopathic physician (DO). That is, a doctor with all the rights, privileges and training of an MD, but with slightly different focus of medical practice. The DO strives to be holistic in approach, using fewer medications, and spending more time with the patient to discern what emotional factors may be contributing to the patient’s disease. Dr. Pearson oversees all medical and therapeutic staff of the NCHC. She screens and interviews all medical and therapeutic applicants, and in addition to their professional credentials, she asks applicants for a statement of faith. Under the Pearson’s there will be no slide into medical secularism as happened to Dr. Cullis’s healing homes.

Dr. Pearson did not immediately take to mixing medical practice and prayer, at least not publicly, but came to it in stages. Let me cite her own words on an early case:

PG Was a 60-year-old alcoholic in recovery for few years. She had had a ventral hernia repaired previously with mesh, and came into my office after being sick for several days. It was immediately obvious she was seriously ill, dehydrated, and septic. I immediately admitted her to the hospital, and consulted surgery for her very distended abdomen. The surgeon took her to the OR, and found severe bowel necrosis (her intestines were rotting), and removed as much tissue as they could and sent her to the ICU.
The surgeons did not feel she had much hope for recovery, she was in acute renal failure, her general health was not great because of her previous medical history, and because she had delayed getting in to see me the infection had spread throughout her body.
I was still a little bit anxious about praying with my patients, and very anxious about what other healthcare providers would think about it! So I went to see her in the ICU, and examined her very thoroughly, waiting for the nurse to leave.
However her situation was so unstable that the nurse remained in the room, constantly adjusting fluids, and responding to her needs. I had been at the hospital for a long time that day, and was exhausted and needed to go home. However, I felt the pull of the Holy Spirit on my heart pray for her despite my fears. She was unconscious, so I spoke to her, using her name, (in front of the nurse! I was terrified), and prayed simply that God would heal her.
I really did not have very much faith (fortunately Jesus tells us we only need to have mustard seed sized faith) and anticipated a poor outcome. However, the next day I came in to see her, and the nurse, ( a different nurse than the one I had seen the previous night) told me she had had a quiet night, and her vital signs were now stable, and her kidney functions were almost back to normal! Much to everybody’s surprise she made a full recovery and lived many more years.
Another nice thing about this: the nurse who saw me pray for her later took me aside and said she was very impressed by the fact that I was willing to pray for my patients, and by how much the patient improved.

Later, when her confidence in medicine and prayer had increased:

A 7-year-old boy and his mother came in to see me. He had a very high fever and a stiff neck. He was lethargic, not his usual active self. Mom told me that he had been very sick over the last few days, she was very anxious about medical care, and did not want to take him to the emergency room as was my recommendation. I was concerned about the possibility of meningitis. I thought he needed a spinal puncture, blood work, and urgent IV antibiotics. She did consent to an injection of antibiotics, but I knew that this would not have enough of an effect if this really was meningitis.
By this time it was my custom to pray for all my patients if they would allow it. So I laid hands on him and asked God to heal him.
I planned to call mom later that afternoon, to see how he was doing, and to try to encourage her to take him to the emergency room. However, she called me back within an hour, and said you must have given him “something magical in that shop” because he was completely better and his fever was gone by the time I got him home! I explained to her that the antibiotic would take at least a few hours to start taking effect, but she remained convinced that the injection had cured her son. I tried to explain otherwise, to no avail; but this showed me how God is willing to work without recognition, simply because He loves us so much.

We have room enough to cite one more of her cases:

“MG” was an 80-year-old woman with severe osteoarthritis of her left hip. She had not done well with anti-inflammatory medications, but really wanted to avoid surgery. We discussed all her options and decided that we would send her to Orthopedics for cortisone injection. She was a little reluctant about this, and concerned about side effects.
Before she left, we prayed together, and asked Jesus to heal her hip. We scheduled a follow-up visit a month later. When she returned her pain was completely gone. I asked about how the visit with the orthopedist went. She looked at me reproachfully and said “I did not need to go, the prayer worked.” She was never bothered with this hip pain again.

The Meeting House
Image: Kristin Smith, used by permission

Besides Dr. Pearson, the NCHC has two nurse practitioners, a massage therapist, and counselors, all of whom combine prayer with their disciplines. It is intertwined, but legally distinct from Trinity Church, under Canon Pearson, who does Sunday and mid-week services at its meeting house. Sunday services are “convergent,” for instance, inviting the congregation to manifest the gifts of the Spirit such as tongues and prophecy during the praise songs segment of the services.

Trinity Church has a women’s Bible study, and men’s group, just like most churches. There is a mid-week healing service with the laying on of hands and regular sessions for inner healing prayer, which is an important element of the ministry at both Trinity Church and NCHC. There are specialized teaching days or weekend classes, co-sponsored with the NCHC, for instance “Finishing Life Well” or “Growing in God,” which deal with specialized issues more deeply than a Sunday sermon can.

At Trinity, there are several activities that would be unusual in most churches. Several times a week there is a period of gardening on the NCHC grounds where volunteers, under the direction of a master gardener, help grow food crops that are distributed to the local food pantry. On the third Friday of the month there is something called “Crafty Afternoons” where persons come in with craft projects to work on and fellowship with others of similar interests – a great idea not common in churches, but should be.[12]

As the NCHC grows in reputation people come from all over the United States to be healed and prayed for at NCHC. I can’t help but feel that Dr. Cullis and Dorothy Kerin are both looking down from heaven, joyfully praying for its continued success and growth. It is a difficult pattern to emulate, demanding just the right personnel, yet doable to those inspired and called to this type of Christian holistic ministry. My own dream is that every large diocese in America would make an effort to establish and fund institutions such as the NCHC.

PR

Notes

[1] Similarly in Colonial times the “meeting house” was used for government business on week days and church services on Sunday. The NCHC webpage: http://newcreationhc.org

[2] For a description of the first American “healing home” see my description of Dr. Cullis’ ministry in my, Quenching the Spirit (Lake Mary: Creation House, 1996) chapter 9.

[3] ICR’s webpage is at: https://christianrenewal.wordpress.com/

[4] On Falls Church Anglican see my article “Falls Church Anglican: The Long March to Healing Excellence,” Pneuma Review. Posted April 19, 2020. http://pneumareview.com/the-falls-church-anglican-the-long-march-to-healing-ministry-excellence/

[5] Mark Pearson, Christian Healing: A Practical and Comprehensive Guide (Lake Mary: Creation House, 2004).

[6] Adapted from the ICR newsletter, June/July 2006, p.3.

[7] In my work, Agnes Sanford and Her Companions, I documented that the Death of God’s most prolific and celebrated theologian, Thomas J. J. Altizer, was demonically possessed from the beginning of his theological career, see pp. 294-295.

[8] In fact, the CEC does not consider itself an Anglican denomination, but entirely distinct, but its Anglican style of worship and hierarchy would convince most observers that it is at least an Anglican type of church. “If it quacks like a duck…”

[9] Paul Thigpen, “Ancient Altars, Pentecostal Fire,” Ministries Today (Nov/Dec 1992), 43-51.

[10]A telling personal story: In 1992, I was in the Episcopal Church and in a prayer group of a wholly orthodox Episcopal church, St. Jude’s of Marietta, Georgia. The prayer group leader, David, felt a vocation to the priesthood and had an interview about this with the Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta. The Bishop told him that he was not the type of candidate he wanted as he was “male, white and too orthodox” in his beliefs. A month after that calamitous interview I read the Ministries Today piece on the CEC and handed it to David. He wrote to Bishop Adler, and after going through the online seminary was ordained a CEC priest, and founded a small but enthusiastic CEC Church.

[11]Mark Pearson, “A Note From the President,” ICR Newsletter (Jan. 1995), 2. See a very similar statement by a long-time Episcopal layman, Art Benning “Why I Left the Episcopal Church,” Acts 29 (Feb., 1995), 12.

[12] Prof. Glenn Clark, the founder of the CFO had a similar idea that was practiced in his summer retreats. He called them “creatives,” and they included painting, poetry writing, drama skits, and other items not normally common to church programs. Recently an article appeared in Christianity Today describing the spiritual side of doing a hobby: Brianne Lambert, “Worship God: Start a Hobby,” Christianity Today, Jan. 16, 2020. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-web-only/work-sabbath-worship-god-start-hobby.html

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.

What has God called you to do? In this chapter from Your Call to Work & Mission: Following Jesus 24/7, Lois Olena shows why and how followers of Jesus should participate in caring for the creation God has made.

It’s Sunday morning, and your adult class welcomes the day’s speaker. She steps up to the microphone and begins talking about the environment. The “E” word! “Oh my,” you wonder, “Is this church turning liberal? Has it started down the path of political correctness that will lead to new age, tree-hugging, nature worship—against which the Bible warns” (Rom. 1:25).

Image: Tim Swaan

You cringe as the speaker continues on about the state of the earth. She shares statistics about air and water pollution, water scarcity, the destruction of rainforests, global warming, and desperate polar bears. Your mind questions, “Isn’t this just propaganda?” She goes on about the state of our oceans and waterways, biodiversity issues, habitat destruction, extinction of species, depletion of the ozone layer, and more.

Overwhelmed, your head swims, and your blood pressure rises. “What can I do about all this?” You think, “Besides, isn’t the earth going to just burn up anyhow at the end of days?¹ What difference will it make if I recycle in the face of such massive global problems?” You let out a quiet sigh and find yourself wishing this class would focus on something relevant to living as a disciple of Jesus.

“Creation Care as Discipleship” by Lois E. Olena is chapter 12 in Stephen Lim, ed., Your Call to Work & Mission: Following Jesus 24/7 Whole-Life Discipleship (AGTS, 2015). Available from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary online bookstore.

Too often these questions characterize the Christian approach to what has traditionally been called “environmentalism.” Believers have approached the topic of care for the earth with doubt and confusion. How we answer such questions, however, depends on the extent to which we can understand the why of God’s call to steward creation and how to do so.

Why Should Christians Care for Creation?²

Believers should care about creation because of what is happening to it. But even more important for Christians is what God’s Word says about it. Let’s look at both reasons.

Environmental Realities

It only takes a few moments of searching the Internet using phrases such as, “state of the environment,” “global warming,” or “pollution,” in order to see the earth’s “groanings” written about so long ago by the Apostle Paul (Rom. 8:22). Although various political, scientific, and religious groups differ on the causes of these realities—most contemporary environmental maladies are easily recognizable as crises in need of increased human awareness, cooperation, and action in order to improve global health.³ Global realities require that we tend to the earth if creation is to avoid continuing damage and thrive as God intended. To show no concern for these environmental realities, notes biblical scholar Christopher J. H. Wright, is “to be either desperately ignorant or irresponsibly callous.”⁴

A Faith Encompassing All of Creation is the third book in The Peaceable Kingdom Series. The editors state that the purpose of the series is “…to challenge the pervasive violence assumed necessary in relation to humans, nonhumans, and the larger environment.” The first book addressed human violence (i.e. war) and the second humanity’s relationship with animals (see my review at http://pneumareview.com/a-faith-embracing-all-creatures-reviewed-by-stephen-vantassel/). This volume takes on the larger task of providing a Christian basis for protecting and restoring the environment.

The book includes articles from 18 authors representing, Catholics, Anabaptists, mainline denominations, and even a few that didn’t declare their sectarian position.. While the authorship list suggests diversity, the diversity is not as broad as it may appear at first glance. For, with perhaps one or two exceptions, they are ideologically bent towards the more progressive and socially aware elements of their respective communities

The articles fall into two categories, the philosophical and the issue based. The philosophical papers discussed how Christians should understand their relationship with the environment. Reading the articles as a whole leaves readers with the following points: 1. A metanarrative that God created the world with humans and nature in environmental harmony. Man’s sin destroyed that harmony, which Christ will ultimately repair. 2. The Bible is a mixed document containing good and bad (or irrelevant) teaching on the environment. The key is to find the right passages and ignore the wrong ones or at least reinterpret them to obtain the right conclusion. 3. Humanity has devastated creation. The degradation of the environment is not only an affront to God but also threatens our continued existence. Finally, human greed, capitalism, and arrogance are responsible for our abuse of creation. Only by recognizing that God wants us to care for creation and shed our ethic of domination and consumption can we begin to repair the environmental damage we have caused.

To those familiar with the topic of Christian environmentalism, most of the information is not new. However, the article by Johnson, which calls us to reconsider the traditional stewardship model for understanding humanity’s relationship to creation, was unusual. Though I am not convinced by her argument, I think it deserves thoughtful reflection. I commend the editors for including Pope Benedict XVI’s message for it was the only paper that explicitly (and correctly) emphasized that environmental concerns flow from respect for our fellow humans.

Issue-based articles focused on specific interpretations of scripture (e.g. Jesus cursing the fig tree) or human activities (e.g. morality of zoos). Boers rightly explained that it is too simplistic to think that technology will always resolve environmental situations. Technology can cause new problems as it resolves old ones. The article should be read by all who are overly optimistic about the promise of technology. On the other hand, I was saddened that several articles discussed issues whose answers should have been obvious to any biblically literate Christian. But upon further reflection, given the biblical illiteracy within modern Christianity, it is understandable that authors felt compelled to explain that care for creation does not require worship of creation, that Christ’s curse of a fig tree doesn’t mean we can kill all trees, and that the apocalypse doesn’t justify destroying the earth in the present.

Despite the aforementioned positive elements, the book contains many weaknesses. First, it lacks sufficient practical advice to guide our actions. Too often the authors resort to platitudes like, ‘care for creation’, without helping us distinguish use from abuse of the environment. Second, several authors fail to engage the bible on its own terms. They don’t seem to consider the possibility that environmental degradation may be partly attributable to corrupt governments and cultures not sufficiently infused with a Judeo-Christian worldview. In addition, at least one author travels the blind path of dethroning humanity thinking that if humanity’s status is lowered, we will care for the planet more. Finally, many of the articles would have benefited from reading more broadly. Deeper research would have helped them define terms and more tightly refine their arguments.

The editors clearly wanted this book to help readers work toward achieving the Peaceable Kingdom. Unfortunately, this book fails to provide enough guidance to clearly point readers in the right direction.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: http://wipfandstock.com/a-faith-encompassing-all-creation.html

An excerpt from The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, edited by Andrew J. Schmutzer. From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

The Long Journey Home

A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse

Creation, Evil, and the Relational Ecosystem

Part 2

 by Andrew J. Schmutzer

The Relational Ecosystem: Sexuality Amid Consequences

Christian theology has historically separated culture from nature and nature from theology, which unfortunately has dichotomized the temporal from eternal, material from the spiritual, and so creation from redemption.¹¹⁷ “Science has now stepped in as lord of the domain which man used to refer to Creation.”¹¹⁸ All this has left a fragmented universe¹¹⁹ and a truncated salvation that lacks holism and restoration (cf. Rom 8:19–22).¹²⁰ This is disconcerting at several levels.

As God’s vice-regents, people live and interact within a *relational ecosystem of dynamic proportion.¹²¹ In the garden-sanctuary, foundational bonds are established between: the human and God, humankind and the ground, human and animal, and between humans. Though somewhat distasteful to contemporary readers, in the theology of Genesis, one’s place of origin and the nature of their birth determine the core characteristics and purpose in life.¹²² In addition to humankind made in the image of God (1:26, discussed above), other significant “bindings” include: the “human” (’ādām) extracted from the “humus” (’ădāmâ, 2:7) and the “woman” (’iššâ) extracted from the “man” (’iš, 2:22). So Adam is uniquely bound to the fertility of the soil as Eve is uniquely bound to the fertility of the body.¹²³ The animals are also “formed out of the ground” (2:19) as “creatures that move on the ground” (1:30). Thus, the biblical notion of self is a relationally “embedded” self, rooted in a web of extended relationships.¹²⁴ This contrasts with the Western value of the individual as an unembedded self. It’s important to observe then, how the relational ecosystem is shattered in Genesis 3. The mistrust of rebellion breaks this web of relationships (3:5).

The “Bindings” Break Apart

Both functional and relational,¹²⁵ the compensatory judgments of 3:14–19 follow the order of transgression (serpent → woman → man; cf. 3:1–7).¹²⁶ Naham M. Sarna helpfully observes that the judgment for each party not only: (1) affects what is of central concern in the life of that entity, (2) but also regulates an external relationship.¹²⁷ Thus, there is some measure of correspondence between the offense and the judgment, point of origin, and future orientation. Relational hostility will exist between humans and the serpent (3:15).¹²⁸ The woman will pursue fertility amid relational antagonism with the man (3:16b).¹²⁹ Similarly, the man pursues the soil’s fertility amid its antagonism (3:17–18). Their points of origin no longer offer security or fulfillment. While the Creation Mandate remains, it is pain and alienation that bind relationships now (Gen 5:29; Eccl 2:23). The man’s “painful toil” (῾ṣābôn, 3:17) working the ground repeats her “pains” (etseb) enduring childbirth (3:16).¹³⁰ A final bond is ruptured when the couple is “banished” from the presence of the Lord (3:23). Once Abel’s blood soaks into “the ground” (4:10), it “will no longer yield its crops” for Cain (4:12), and ultimately a pervasive “wickedness” reigns in “the human heart” (6:6), stunningly matched by the “pain” (atsab) of the Lord’s grieving “heart” (6:6).¹³¹ Sin has ecological and cosmic effects—from creature to Creator, the entire relational ecosystem now suffers (6:7; Deut 11:13–17; Rom 8:22).

Frank D. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 360 pages, ISBN 9780802837493.

Justified in the Spirit is a sophisticated attempt to do what its title suggests: to find an increased role for the Spirit within the Christian doctrine of justification. The book represents a bringing together of a number of different perspectives—including those that derive primarily from centuries of tradition, along with more recent insights from biblical scholarship. The book moves through discussions of the shape of soteriology within different streams of tradition (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Pentecostal, etc.), and combines these with significant contributions from well known theologians. Although Macchia is a theologian himself, he pays more attention to the fruits of New Testament scholars than many other theologians working today.

One of the book’s main arguments is summed up on p. 53: “Participation in Christ is first and primarily a pneumatological reality as believers are caught up in the communion of the Spirit with Christ and, through Christ with the heavenly Father.” This sentence says a lot. One of the book’s main aims seems to be to forge links between aspects of soteriology and Trinitarian language.

Many of the main features, it must be said, are indicative of the age in which this book was written: it is certainly vogue to be “broadly Trinitarian, ecclesiological, and eschatological” (a description found on the back cover). While there may a proper place to be “Trinitarian”, the way in which that call has been handled in recent years has been a little over the top, as it sometimes seems as if one’s handling of any given doctrine can somehow be graded on how great a role it assigns to each member of the Trinity. It is almost as though theologians are afraid to leave out one of the members of the Trinity in any given discussion, even when the topic (e.g. hermeneutics) does not have a natural bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity. This danger seems to be somewhat greater among Pentecostals, as some appear to have a strong desire to bring the Spirit into doctrines in which the Spirit arguably does not belong.

Frank D. Macchia

Does Macchia do that here? It is difficult to say. His discussion is at all places carefully researched, and his arguments are never fleeting or forced. Although he never gives the keys (so to speak) to NT scholarship, he does listen to it intently and with a genuine openness. And yet the question remains whether Macchia accomplishes a pneumatological orientation of the doctrine of justification simply by construing “justification” more broadly than others do, by allowing it to include (rather than lead to) the fruit of the spirit-filled life. The same could be said of how Macchia achieves his heightened emphasis on the role of the spirit-filled community. Both of these concerns naturally belong within a theology, but are they really a part of justification per se? Macchia evidently disagrees with the habit of identifying “justification” with a forensic aspect of salvation, and identifying the other aspects of salvation with other terms. Yet he writes as if the term “justification” must apply to all aspects of salvation—including justification per se, sanctification, and redemption. (See esp. pp. 204–5.) Macchia is not alone in this, but it is still unfortunate that he does not explain why he takes this approach.

As one of the most prolific Pentecostal theologians, Amos Yong is no stranger to the science and religion dialogue, although this volume is his first independent monograph dedicated to Pentecostal contributions to the debate. Yong’s previous writings on the topic are distributed across a variety of academic essays and articles and not always readily accessible. The Spirit of Creation assembles a collection of these texts into a deftly argued Pentecostal manifesto that calls Pentecostals out of the dark ages of the pre-modern world. For Yong, Pentecostals have a significant place in the scientific discussions due to their emphasis on the dynamic presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.

Yong’s primary rationale for insisting on the Pentecostal engagement of the sciences (and vice versa) emerges from a reading of the forces of modernization that have enabled the prospering of both the sciences and Pentecostalism. For Yong, it is a mistake to equate Pentecostalism with a pre-modern movement or anti-modern tendencies. Instead, Pentecostals are also impacted by the advance of the scientific worldview and both worlds do not have to be seen in contrast to one another: science and Pentecostalism are different linguistic and cultural outlooks on the natural world that both declare the fullness of God’s truth. For Yong, a withdrawal of Pentecostals from the conversation would damage their credibility not only from the scientific perspective but from the entire viewpoint of the late modern world. In contrast, Yong suggests that the Pentecostal perspective offers a unique contribution to the dialogue of science and theology.

Amos Yong

The book consists of six chapters. Yong begins with a discussion of the Pentecostal encounter with the sciences and the possibility of a Pentecostal contribution. The second chapter approaches the kind of Pentecostal sensibilities Yong has for some time termed the pneumatological imagination: the start with and the engagement of the world from the perspective of the Holy Spirit. This perspective represents for Yong a methodological advantage to engage theology and science. The third chapter proposes a Pentecostal perspective on the Divine Action Project organized by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at Berkeley, California, and the Vatican Observatory. Yong’s particular proposal suggests that the Pentecostal emphasis on both the Spirit (i.e., pneumatology) and the existence in the last days (i.e., eschatology) can lead to a pneumatological and teleological framework for the explanation of divine action. This framework is developed in chapter four into a model for understanding miracles in a world governed by the laws of nature. Yong’s goal is to speak of divine action in a manner that takes seriously the miraculous without violating the laws of nature. He concludes that the pneumato-eschatological framework necessitates a rethinking of the laws of nature in non-necessitarian terms. Yong’s methodological and theological proposal is examined in chapter 5 as a case study on the cosmic “history” of the world. He adopts and modifies the theory of emergence to include the Spirit of God and re-narrates the standard evolutionary account of the world into a teleological narrative. It is due to the central figure of the Spirit that this cosmogony can be told from both a scientific and theological perspective. The final chapter takes this potential dialogue into a programmatic direction and proposes a pneumatological cosmology that speaks of all creation as filled with the Spirit.