Roger E. Olson

This two-part article by the noted Evangelical scholar, Roger Olson, should be of interest to practically every reader of Pneuma Review. The article deals with two prominent theologians of the modern era who espouse very different views on the morality of the Christian’s participation in war. Olson’s article masterfully summarizes their opposite theologies. The first is that of Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) who formulated a modern variant of the Christian “just war” theology that traces its roots to St. Augustine (354-430). Olson then summarizes the Christian pacifist theology of Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) which has garnered a wide following in recent decades.

Olson is well credentialed for his attempt at describing these opposite positions. He is professor at Baylor University, and has been editor of Christian Scholar’s Review and Christianity Today, and as such is well acquainted with Christian thought of all persuasions. Olson declares he loves and has been influenced by the theology of both Niebuhr and Hauerwas. He admits it is a seemingly impossible task to reconcile these two theological views, but makes a valiant effort at it.

Christoph Blumhardt

For Niebuhr, war is a tragic necessity and never completely successful. Man’s sin nature would ensure that mistakes would be made in the course of the war or in the peace process. In fact, nothing would be definitively just until the Second Coming. Yet inaction and pious pacifism would lead to catastrophe. When Niebuhr began airing his view on war and the use of force, it was contested strongly by other pastors and theologians, as many were disillusioned by the failed peace after World War I. However, as the tragic history of World War II unfolded, his arguments seemed self-evidently true to most Christians.

All to the contrary, a resurgent Christian pacifism has been elaborated by the Duke University theologian Stanley Hauerwas. Hauerwas came to maturity during the Vietnam war, when the Berrigan brothers, two Catholic priests, were formulating a pacifist argument against the Vietnam War. For many, Vietnam seemed anything but a “just war.” Hauerwas was especially influenced by the Mennonite theologian Howard Yoder who preached a form of Christian absolute pacifism and non-violence.

Molecular biologist Denis Alexander and geophysicist Robert White are committed to both their Christian faith and their scientific fields, which is a characteristic to be emulated by both sides. Since they affirm both, however, this is not a standard ‘apologetic’ work; rather, the authors intend to develop and promote a ‘robust’ theism, all the while defending the verity of science, in a search for meaning and accommodation (perhaps) on both sides. Alexander and White argue that that the natural sciences and Christianity share many attributes with one another, and that any conflict between the two has been due to a priori assumptions, or interpretations of the data that each field presents; there is no real conflict, then, in truth, as the two are congruent. At the same time, however, they do not read too much into the congruencies between the two, as if the consonances reflect beneficially unto theology. In what follows, we will explore individual chapters a little more closely.

The first five chapters constitute part one, and focus – largely – on the relation of science to religion, and vice-versa. They address such issues as whether there are two separate knowledge domains – science and religious – or if the two are interdependent; it seems that they tend more-so toward the latter view than former. In successive chapters, the third and fourth, they show that neither science nor religion are discredited by discoveries in the opposite realm. In the fifth, they argue that science could benefit from the encounter and interaction with religion.

The second part of the book addresses ‘hot issues’ within the science-religion dialogue in the twenty-first century, and comprises four chapters. In the sixth, they address the issue of whether the world – and humans are created or has evolved; notably, they answer with an affirmation of both. Herein they ably discuss the three mechanisms of evolution, consisting of mutation, recombination, and gene flow; they affirm Asa Gray’s intention, directly following the publication of On the Origin of Species, to ‘baptize’ Darwin’s theory of evolution, insomuch as ‘nature is what God does’ (109). Chapter seven considers genetic engineering from a Christian perspective, and the authors advocate that we should not attempt to change the essence or telos of any organism, but that it is permissible to proverbially ‘tinker’ with various organisms (they make particular mention of transgenic plants, with reference to both pesticide and herbicide resistance, on pg. . 117). In chapter eight, the authors assert that we – as Christians – have a responsibility to be decent stewards of God’s creation, and we thus should engage in the environmental debate. The ninth chapter affirms that Christians should be – and need to be! – actively involved in contemporary science as active scientists, and thereby preserving and promoting integrity therein. All in all, the authors argue that that Christianity has much to contribute to the scientific and ethical debates facing today’s world, and we would do well to heed their advice.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Publisher’s page: http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/560182.trade.html

This review was first published on the In Depth Resources page of the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization to PneumaReview.com) February 22, 2010.

This text is a collection of articles on Christian ethics published in the journal Transformation, published by the Oxford Center for Mission Studies. The 18 articles are organized under five different headings.

The first section, “Words and Works,” contains three articles that engage the difficult question of how to use Scripture for moral guidance. Davies, in his article The Ethics of the Hebrew Bible, surveys the different stances taken to derive moral insight from scripture. Samuel’s article, “The Holy Spirit in Word and Works: A Study in John 14 to 16,” argues that in the debate between truth and action our emphasis should tip towards truth. Tollefson appeals to Nehemiah for a model of how leaders can create social transformation in their communities. The next two sections, “Response to Poverty” and “Economic Justice” engage the thorny question of responding to poverty both personally and at an institutional levels. The editors selected several very good articles that deserve wider readership. In particular, Mason’s article, “Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor,” provides an interesting interpretation of the Bible’s social welfare policy and provides some key cautions to those who wish to use Scripture to support a welfare state. Getu’s article, “The Biblical Perspective on Transformational Business,” contends that business and profit can be used for social good provided that the owners keep social goals in mind. Mott and Sider, in their article, “A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice,” play a contrasting perspective with Mason’s piece. Readers should read both articles together and note areas where the authors agree, where they disagree, and where they speak to different issues. The last article of note is Hartropp’s discussion of how the Bible understands economic justice. His comments are essential reading to ensure that debates between competing visions of abating poverty are using terms in the same way.

The section on Family was somewhat disappointing in that it neglected many of the common issues facing the modern family. It did, however, focus extensively on children, a subject generally neglected in Christian theology and ethics. Unfortunately, I think the articles were more evocative than substantive.

The final section, “Environment,” presented a good overview of major environmental themes contained in Scripture. Unfortunately, the authors too often employed vague platitudes in their comments, such as scripture does not teach exploitation or domination of nature. While such statements need to be made, they also need to be clearly defined as the debate centers on what behavior constitutes abuse versus use. I was disappointed that the authors didn’t engage Jesus’ treatment of the environment, such as the miracle of the fishes, the drowning of the pigs, and the curse of the fig tree. I am not convinced that researchers have sufficiently pondered the significance of Christ’s behavior in these three situations. Readers should also note that Bauckham’s interpretation of Mark 1:13 is likely wrong in light of Heil’s article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

Nimi Wariboko, The Pentecostal Principle: Ethical Methodology in New Spirit, Pentecostal Manifestos 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 235 pp. + xii, ISBN 9780802866974.

The “Pentecostal Manifestos” series is designed for a rising and outwardly-focused generation of Pentecostal scholarship. In this the fifth book of the collection, Nimi Wariboko, Katherine B. Stuart Professor of Christian Ethics at Andover Newton Theological School, provides a tightly written, appropriately focused book on humanity, transformation, and flourishing. In this book Wariboko carefully delineates the position between permanence and absence.

The book is divided into five parts. The first chapter providing a platform on which the central thesis of a Pentecostal Principle is established. Chapter two explains the methodology of an ethical approach. In the third chapter, Wariboko lays out the central paradigm informing his methodology; what consists in the ‘plurivocality’ of Pentecost. The fourth chapter uncovers the ontological dynamics of the Pentecostal principle, namely, the ‘Pentecostal Spirit.’ Finally, concerning the promise and future trajectory of the Pentecostal Principle, Wariboko suggests that the best way forward is a theology of play. A theology of the Holy Spirit concerned primarily with questions pertaining to pneumatic existence and the interior dynamics of the pneumatological imagination.

Wariboko builds principally on the Tillichian school of thought, meaning an analysis of the inter-connectedness of theology and economics. In this respect Wariboko draws on the principle of a new ethic and spirit for Christianity. Undergirding Wariboko’s position is an emphasis on the ‘theology of play,’ signifying creativity and lack of social conformism. This thesis is sustained and energized by a theology of the Third Article and the continuing, ongoing, mediated presence of Holy Spirit baptism. The lasting criterion of a Tillichian Protestant approach is emphasis on the divine-human relationship and the synthetical association between this principle and universality (Catholicity) of culture and existence.

Perhaps there is what Wariboko calls a Protestant ‘kairiotic’ approach, but there is indeed a gap between this reality and the function (signature) of existence. My one critique would be that the relationship between permanence and transience (finitude) is not always immediately evident; nevertheless, this hardly points to a methodological flaw. The work’s strength is Wariboko’s concerted effort to establish a connection between ‘particularity’ (individuality) and Catholicity. More than anything, a renewal methodology, rooted in the Pentecostal Principle is a “reflective response,” consisting in necessity and the interior crises of pluralism (129). The grace of the self-giving God is a genuine grace, freely given and freely received.

Reviewed by Paul J. Palma