By Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D.
Like other prominent members of the Neo-orthodox movement Dr.
Nels F.S. Ferre, Professor of Christian Theology at Andover Newton Theological School,
considers both modernism and traditional Christianity to be failures. Traditional
Christianity or fundamentalism contained some true Christian elements, but they
were buried under many inconsistencies. Modernism recognized the truth of science
and historical criticism, but never had enough nerve to become a real religion of
faith. Dr. Ferre aims to preach a religion of faith and zeal without
contradicting or even minimizing modern scholarship.
In doing so, however. Dr. Ferre makes much less use of the time-eternity
dialectic, of paradox, anxiety, confrontation, and the philosophy of existentialism
than do several other Neo-orthodox writers. He is more theological and less philosophical.
For this reason his attack on fundamentalism is much more prominent than any disagreement
he might have with modernism. Indeed, from the standpoint of orthodox Christianity,
the difference is minimal.
His complete rejection of the main elements of historic Christianity
is unambiguously given in The Sun and the Umbrella. This book opens with
a parable. Once upon a time some people lived in an old dark barn of Legalism, where
their only light came from some smoky smelly lamps. Eventually prophets came and
told them that there was sunlight outside. After considerable disbelief and active
resistance, some of these people went outside. But the sun was so bright that they
had to put up imibrellas to shield their eyes.
One of these umbrellas was the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus
Christ. As Dr. Ferre also does two or three times in Christ and the Christian,
so here too he uses the question "Why callest thou me good?" as a denial
of deity. Then he adds (page 28) "Certainly Jesus was a fully normal human
being in all things like ourselves." The statement pointedly omits the qualification
"without sin". This is stressed in all his life, whatever be his union
with God, with no need to know actual alienation from what follows. "If anyone
could remain sinless all his life, whatever be his union with God, with no need
to know alienation from God for the sake of freedom and personal maturity, then
our earthly existence is unnecessary. If such a life history were possible with
any one man, then God could have made and preserved us all that wav from the beginning."
All this is a little breath-taking. The omnipotent God of course
could have preserved Adam and all of us from sin, had he so decreed; but why would
a sinless Jesus have made earthly existence necessary? The passage seems to hint
that God is not omnipotent and that man must sin in order to become mature. Later
something is to be said about Dr. Ferre's theological method, about how he arrives
at such assertions; but at this juncture the point is merely that he asserts that
Jesus was not sinless.
Another instance of Dr. Ferre's rejection of the main doctrines
of Christianity has to do with the Atonement. In the same book (page 31 ff.) he
explains that Jesus is not our High Priest as the epistle to the Hebrews says. "The
love of God needs no placating, no offering once for all to satisfy him." This
much is clear, avers the author, from the j)arable of the prodigal son. "By
doctrines insisting on a blood- thirsty God, that is. that he required Jesus' death
before he could allow himself to love us, so that he even sent his Son basically
to die — Christian theology effectually denied that God... is naturally and eternally
love."
No comment need be made on the word "bloodthirsty",
but it should be noted how Dr. Ferre distorts historic Christianity to make a point.
He represents the Atonement as a doctrine that prevents God from loving us before
Jesus died. Such a distortion is a little surprising. Is it not a matter of common
knowledge among learned theologians that the Atonement represents God as so loving
His elect that He sent His Son to die for them? If God originally had not loved
anyone, how could the sending of His Son be explained?
Combining these two points of attack on orthodox
Christianity, Dr. Ferre continues (page 35), "To call Jesus God is to substitute
an idol for Incarnation; to call Him Saviour, in the ultimate sense, is to deny
that all salvation comes from God our Saviour and from Him alone in order that God
may be all in all. Jesus is savior" only by virtue of the fact that God was
in Him reconciling the world to Himself, a saviourhood in which we must all participate
in order to be saved."
Dr. Ferre is well aware that he is no friend of what has been
called Christianity through the ages. In his Return to Christianity (pages
5 and 6) , after characterizing the Christianity to which he thinks people should
return, he admits that his description is not in accord with the traditional view.
This Biblical view maintains the existence of the devil and the reality of hell.
On such ideas Dr. Ferre pours his vituperation: "Lilliputian theology;"
"a little Ptolemaic God;" "a repulsive religion;" and even "the
opium of the people" (page 8).
Not only does Dr. Ferre use uncomplimentary language, but he
also misquotes the Bible to support his views. In Evil and the Christian Faith
(pp. 118, 119) as evidence of universal salvation, he refers to Rom. 11:32 by saying,
"God has consigned all men to disobedience that He might have mercy on all."
But this is mistranslation. The verse does not speak of all men.
Paul's wording is "them all", which indicates that a certain class of
men was intended. Then Dr. Ferre writes, "If one creature is to be eternally
tormented. Christ's compassion declares that it were far better that there had been
no creation." But in the verse alluded to, Christ made no mention of general
creation; nor did He even say that it were better that man had not been created.
What He said was that it were better for that man if he had never been born. To
say that it would have been better for one man, is not to say that it would have
been better absolutely. These are instances of misquotation that should not go unnoticed.
One must seriously ask whether it is good scholarship to attach
the name Christian to a new religion that has so little in common with the old Christianity.
This question will be accentuated by a study of Dr. Ferre's positive doctrines
and his method of arriving at both the assertions and the denials. In any theology,
Augustine's or Aquinas', Kierkegaards or Schleiermacher's, Barth's or Ferre's, method
determines the results. Though there may be some value in discussing details, the
prior and dominating question is always t h e question of method.
The traditional method of Christian theology has been the acceptance
of the Scriptures as the Word of God. God breathed out His message to the prophets
and caused them to write it down; we study their words because God put His words
into their mouths. This method Dr. Ferre decisively rejects. "The use of the
Bible as the final authority for Christian truth is idolatry. Actually it has become
a very thick and formidable umbrella to hide the sun" (op. cit., p.
39). He then continues, "Vehemently Jesus opposed Scribism and Pharisaism because
in circumscribing religious authority to the Scriptures and the traditions, they
throttled living religion."
Here again we note the distortion previously mentioned. Jesus
no doubt opposed Pharisaism, but it was not because they circumscribed religious
authority to the Scriptures. Dr. Ferre here joins what God has put asunder: tradition
and Scripture. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they transgressed the commandment
of God by their tradition and made the commandment of God of none effect by "your
tradition, ye hypocrites." Jesus Himself maintained that the Scripture cannot
be broken: and though it might be said that Moses' words were insufficient, (in
the sense that Jesus and the Apostles gave us a fuller revelation, not in the sense
that the Old Testament message was insufficient for salvation), Dr. Ferre gives
the wrong impression by claiming that Jesus "met frantic opposition as soon
as He outspokenly proclaimed that Moses' words were wrong or insufficient."
Did not Jesus say, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he
wrote of me; but if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
In Christ and the Christian (pages 37 ff.) a better reason
is given for rejecting the Bible as the basis of theology. At least it would be
a better reason, if it were true. The Bible is self-contradictory, Dr. Ferre avers. It presents several incompatible Christologies.
In some places it says that Jesus is the Messiah; in others it says that He is God
— though this is an unfortunate strand in the New Testament; Jesus is also called
the Logos; then again He is a creature, the first born of many such; and He became
Son of God by adoption. These inconsistencies, these differing Christologies require
us to use some other principle by which to choose from among them. We cannot believe
contradictions. Obviously therefore a principle external to the Bible must govern
our selection. The need of selection makes it impossible to accept the Bible as
the final authority.
Alleged contradictions in the Bible are often easily seen to
be the result of misconstructions. Previous mention was made of the uncritical use
of Jesus' question, Why callest thou me good? An instructive contrast to Dr. Ferre's
hasty conclusions, if one wishes to examine some Christological details, is found
in the careful analysis of The Self-Disclosure of Jesus by Geerhardus Vos.
If now the foregoing is what Dr. Ferre rejects, what does he
accept? That is, not only what particular form of Christology does he accept, but
more importantly what is his theological method? What is his court of last appeal?
The question is easily answered, for Dr. Ferre makes it quite clear that his entire
position, both what he accepts and what he rejects, depends on his basic concept
of God. Whatever agrees with this concept can be included in his religion; whatever
does not agree must be discarded. What then is his concept of God?
"This claim that God as Agape, or unlimited, objective,
self-giving love is central for both faith and life constitutes the fulfilling and
revolutionary uniqueness of the Christian faith" (Return to Christianity,
p. 5). Again, "Our position aims at the universal truth of God as Agape...
We start with Jesus Christ Himself as Agape, the Event-Meaning that most fully explains
our experience and our world" (Christ and the Christian, pp. 53, 54).
Agape is not to be interpreted by the Bible. This would "make the revelation
of no effect;" it "takes the edge off the sword of the Spirit," for
the Bible inconsistently contains "subagapaic themes." Agape is "indiscriminate
kindness to all, as illustrated by His giving rain to both the just and the unjust."
"Agape is also completely universal in its creative and redemptive concern...
Agape is, furthermore, unconditional love... unconditional, uncaused, unmotivated,
groundless, uncalculating, spontaneous Love" {ibid. pp. 57, 62 ,63).
Dr. Ferre recognizes the importance of this starting point, both
for methodology and with respect to the propriety of calling his theology Christian.
"If the starting point is correct and
meaningful, we have both the right and the need for basic theological revision in
order to let the Christian faith become rightly understood and properly effective.
If this starting point is wrong, our whole theology needs re- doing. In such a case,
at least, this theology should be declared to be a God centered interpretation
within the context of God as holy love, even if it is not an authentic spokesman
for historic Christianity" {ibid. p. 53).
In evaluating this starting point and theological method the
conclusion of this article will be first that there is no good reason assuming such
a concept of God, and second that the religion evolved out of it is not Biblical
and not Christian.
First, any definition or characterization of God requires some
opportunity for coming to know God. How can man discover anything about God's nature?
In this theology the Bible is ruled out as revelation. Perhaps by accident the Bible
might contain some truth, but the method assumes that the theologian has a prior
idea of God by which he determines what in the Bible is true and what is false.
Where did the theologian obtain the information that God is love; in particular
where did he obtain the in- formation that God is indiscriminate kindness to all?
If this information is not to be accepted on the Bible's authority, then what is
its source? There is no evidence in nature, in history, or in personal experience
that would necessitate such a concept of God.
The personal experience of an individual is too narrow to serve
as a base for theology. Nature may be indiscriminate, but there is not much kindness
in tooth and claw. History records all sorts of discrimination and cruelty. By no
stretch of the imagination can it be maintained that God has shown indiscriminate
kindness to every individual that has ever lived. Some individuals and some nations
have been obviously favored above others.
This favor is not restricted to material culture; it is not merely
a matter of physical comfort; it includes educational opportunities. Contrast the
lot of a Chinese peasant with that of an American suburban youngster. It also includes
spiritual status. The patriarchs of Genesis who lived with a sense of God's protecting
care could hardly have enjoyed much more physical comfort than some groups who walked
in the constant fear of evil spirits. There is therefore no evidence of indiscriminate
kindness, and one must conclude that such a theological method is theology by hunch.
A subsidiary but still important difficulty that Dr. Ferre has
failed to overcome is the deduction of the details of his theology from the basic
concept of Agape. At least to the present writer it is not clear that Agape as Dr.
Ferre defines it necessitates all the exclusions and inclusions that he desires.
Indiscriminate kindness would no doubt rule out hell and would require universal
salvation. But even under these conditions could not the second Person of the Trinity
assume an impersonal human nature? That is, could not indiscriminate kindness consist
with the full deity of Jesus' ego? Certainly this is as possible as Dr. Ferre's
view that a heavenly Christ somehow came down and worked through a human Jesus.
If God's love is indiscriminate, this ought to have occurred with everyone — not
sometime in the future when all shall be saved, but with everyone in the past too,
for a delayed salvation is also discrimination.
Universal salvation accentuates the problem of delay. In Evil
and the Christian Faith (p. 120) Dr. Ferre writes, "He will not compel
us to go against our will; He will just make us willing to go. He will make our
own way so self-punishing that at last we come to our better selves." But why
"at last"? If God can make us willing, and if God is indiscriminate kindness,
why does He not make everyone willing immediately? A delayed salvation is also discrimination.
At any rate, can Agape imply that "the Persons of the Trinity
are operational capacities in God"? (Christ and the Christian, p. 205).
Or, for that matter, why does Agape imply that "We can never become God"?
Some philosophers assert it to be possible; how does Agape show that it is impossible?
Why too does Agape require time and change to be attributes of God? (ibid.
pp. 237-238). If appearance may be trusted that these theological details cannot
be strictly deduced from the norm of Agape, then it follows that some other unacknowledged
method has also been employed; and this again raises the problem of the possibility
of any knowledge of God apart from verbal revelation.
These brief considerations show the arbitrariness of taking Agape
as the starting point and reveal its poverty as a basis for theology. Now, second
and finally, the concept of Agape is not Biblical or Christian, and Dr. Ferre's
attempt to make it appear so can only embarrass him.
The verse of Scripture which Dr. Ferre several times appeals
to as a proof text that his conception of Agape is Biblical is the one that speaks
of God's sending the sun and rain on the just and unjust alike. One might also refer
to the Lord's promise to Noah that while the earth remaineth seedtime and harvest
shall not cease. But is this undoubted truth "central for both faith and life,"
and can I be a Christian "only because I am convinced that God is Agape"?
A less biassed study of the Bible would show that Agape, defined as indiscriminate
kindness, is far from being its central motif.
It is even possible that this regularity of natural
processes is not an expression of indiscriminate kindness at all. Like the Apostles'
ministry sun and rain also may be a savor of life unto life for some and a savor
of death unto death for others. At any rate, the central motif of the the Bible
is not indiscriminate kindness to all people alike, but rather a particular choice
of some individuals above all others. There were many idolators living in Ur, but
God chose Abraham and caused him to leave his home and his idols for a city whose
builder and maker is God. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael; and God loved Jacob but
Esau he hated.
At best, indiscriminate treatment of all people alike only obscures
God's love, God's particular electing grace. Certainly it is not true that "A
more careful examination of his (Jesus') parables and teachings discloses that the
central motif within them is Agape" (ibid. p. 57) . It is Jesus Himself,
not Paul or anyone else, who has the most to say about hell, outer darkness, gnashing
of teeth, the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched. It is Jesus
who talks about a doom that makes the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah seem tolerable.
As for the parable, the wicked tenant farmers were to be ground to powder under
a mighty stone; the foolish virgins were excluded from the feast — they did not
even get in late; the man with the one talent was cast out; the goats on his left
hand will be sent away into everlasting punishment. It takes remarkable blindness
to see Jesus as a teacher of indiscriminate kindness and universal salvation.
Presumably Dr. Ferre wishes to escape these strictures by claiming
that we cannot depend on "any fanciful ipsissima verba" of Jesus;
by claiming too that Jesus Himself was inconsistent (ibid. p. 60); that the
disciples misunderstood Him; that Jesus' vitriolic denunciation of the Pharisees
is not an "authentic report in detail" (p. 83); and that "we cannot
know the historic Jesus" (ibid. p. 58). But on these conditions it cannot
possibly be true that "The final result is a reliable, general picture"
(p. 57) of Agape or of anything else whatever.
The Jesus whom Dr. Ferre portrays is found nowhere in the Bible. If the Gospels are accurate. Dr. Ferre's Jesus is proved to be an arbitrary construction, based on no literary, historical, exegetical, or objective evidence. If, on the other hand, the Gospels are as defective as he says they are, nothing reliable is obtainable. In either case it seems foolish lo talk about Biblical support for Agape theology. The wisest thing to do is to use a different method and accept a different religion; to wit, the Biblical religion of verbal revelation, and its name is Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment