Voelz - Newton And Einstein At The Foot Of The Cross

"Newton and Einstein at the Foot of the Cross": A Post-Modern Approach to Theology Dr. James W. Voelz

I. The Problem When we view the contents of the Bible as a whole, it often seems as if differing things are being said about the same topics or issues. Example 1: For you have no delight in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased (Ps. 51:16)/Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings (Ps. 51:18-19a). Example 2: "No man can come to me except the Father draw/pull him" (John 6:44)/God is pleased by all those who fear him and do what is good and acceptable in his sight (Acts 10:35). Example 3: We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Rom. 7:14)/ But now, having been liberated from sin, and having been enslaved to God, you have fruit issuing in holiness and its end, eternal life (Rom. 6:22). Several approaches can be taken to this phenomenon: — We can see it as evidence for different sources.1 — We can sere in it contradictory/incongruent theologies.2 — We can seek to harmonize, understanding such passages as actually speaking on different topics or to different issues.3 — Or, we can see the evidence as cohering in a different way, viz., we can understand that different views or approaches to the same topic are being taken. That is to say, we can understand that different perspectives are being expressed.

1

Artur Weiser, e.g., in his treatment of Ps. 51 (The Psalms: A Commentary, trans. Herbert Hartwell [London: SCM, 1962], 410), sees w. 18-19 as a later addition from the exilic period, which contradicts the thought of the earlier verse [cf. v. 16). See example 1, above. 2 See, e.g., Ernst Haenchen's comments on Luke's theology in the book of Acts (The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [Oxford: Blackwell, 1971], 91-94). He asserts that it involves a "subordinationist Christology" (92) and contends that it "does not contain a doctrine of the vicarious atonement" (92). Overall, he calls it a "simple theology" (91). Later, he contrasts Luke's views with those of John (95-96). See example 2, above. 3 A standard Lutheran interpretation sees both statements as applying to the "new man" after conversion (in the case of the former, to Paul himself) and discussing the sanctified life. See Michael P. Middendorf, The "I" in the Storm: A Study of Romans 7 [St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 1997], 35-37. The "dismal picture" of the Christian life painted by the former passage, however, has led many interpreters to see it as discussing a non-Christian, pre-conversion state, either of Paul or of others more generally (Middendorf, "I" in the Storm, 37-42). Middendorf quotes Kümmel (38): "The reader who had heard most distinctly from Paul in chapter 6 that the Christian is free from sin (6:22) could not come to the conception that Paul here describes himself."

It is this perspectival approach which I would like to explore in this essay. Indeed, I would like to propose that it gives us a new kind of overall understanding of what Scripture says.

II. Toward a Solution: A Perspectival Understanding A. Introduction and Basic Articulation What do I mean exactly by a perspectival understanding? Simply put, that the same data look different depending upon the observer's point of view. Let me give you some simple illustrations and examples. 1. Simple Illustrations The first illustration is the old joke or story about the five blind men and the elephant. It goes like this: Five blind men were each asked to describe an elephant. The first grabbed hold of its tail and said, "It's like a snake." The second grabbed hold of its leg and said, "It's like a tree." The third put his hand on the elephant's side and said, "It's like a wall." The fourth took hold of its trunk and said, "It's like a hose." And the fifth was able to touch its ear and said, "It's like a fan." Each experienced the same elephant, but there were five different perspectives. Perhaps better is the common depiction at the end of this essay (Fig. 1). Depending upon how you view it, depending upon which features you focus upon and how you see them in relation to one another—i.e., depending upon your perspective—it is either a vase or two faces looking at one another. 2. Contemporary Physics But that data look different depending upon the observer's point of view is probably best illustrated or incarnated in contemporary physics— hence the title of this paper, "Newton and Einstein at the Foot of the Cross." In accordance with Newtonian analysis—if we may use Newton as shorthand for the analysis of standard physics before the twentieth century— the universe is a very describable, a very stable, and a very predictable place. — Material is solid, energy is not. — Actions elicit equal and opposite reactions. — Time is constant, etc. But since the early twentieth century—and we use Einstein as typical and archetypal here—the universe can be and is also seen as a very unusual, a very unstable, and a very unpredictable place. Consider the following current "facts" of contemporary physics:4 4

I am indebted to Dr. Mark A. Jones of ATT Research Labs for an initial and basic orientation to the material which follows in this section.

— According to Einstein's Special Law of Relativity (1905),5 as speed increases, time slows down and the length of objects contracts.6 — Also, according to this theory, at extremely high speeds, matter and energy can be and are interchangeable (E=MC2).7 — According to Einstein's General Law of Relativity (1915),8 space is curved9 and time slows down in strong gravitational fields.10 — According to Slipher (1913-1916), red shift evidence shows that galaxies are mutually receding from one another.11 — Furthermore, according to Hubble (1929), the farther away the galaxies are, the faster they are receding.12 — According to Heisenberg (1929), one cannot know both the position and the momentum (= mass χ velocity) of a particle simultaneously.13 — According to de Broglie (1925), matter has a dual nature, so that particles, including electrons, have the properties of and behave like waves.14 — And, building upon the work of de Broglie, according to New Quantum (Wave) Theory (1920s to the present [Schrödinger, Born, Eddington, Dirac, etc.]): — electrons are not best seen as discrete bodies with negative charges in clean orbits but, rather, as waves which are only mathematical abstractions;15 — there are no certainties in observation and analysis, only probabilities (e.g., as to the location of an electron);16 — and, according to the so-called "Copenhagen interpretation," physical properties have no objective reality independent of the act of observation.17 Now, which of these systems/these perspectives is correct, the traditional one of Newton or the contemporary one of Einstein, et al.? The answer is that both are correct, depending upon your point of view. We do not feel ourselves receding from other galaxies at nearly the speed of light. We do not understand it to be impossible to determine the position and momentum of objects we perceive. Matter seems very solid. Time is, to us, a constant. We might put it this

5

Roger S. Jones, Physics for the Rest of Us: Ten Basic Ideas of Twentieth-Century Physics That Everyone Should Know...and How They Have Shaped Our Culture and Consciousness (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1992), 7-29. 6 Ibid., 20-29. 7 Ibid., 26-27. 8 Ibid., 43-77. 9 Ibid., 59-62. 10 Ibid., 76. 11 George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York: Avon, 1993), 50. 12 Ibid., 49-50. 13 Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 1988), 54-55, and Jones, Physics for the Rest of Us, 159-162. 14 John Gribbin, In Search of Schrödinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality (New York: Bantam, 1984), 86-91. 15 Ibid., 112-114. 16 Jones, Physics for the Rest of Us, 156-159. 17 Ibid., 162-166; Gribbin, Schrödinger's Cat, 160-161. The following quote from Gribbin (160) is typical: "...whereas in classical physics we imagine a system of interacting particles to function, like clockwork, regardless of whether or not they are observed, in quantum physics the observer interacts with the system to such an extent that the system cannot be thought of as having independent existence."

way: Depending upon your perspective—human, on the one hand, or sub-atomic I supragalactic, on the other— the universe looks very different and acts very differently, indeed.18 B. Application to Sacred Scripture

Now, how does all of this apply to the sacred Scriptures? In precisely this way: Depending upon your vantage point/your perspective, there seem to be two overall systems of theology with their own overall principles or truths. The first is characterized by what I shall call God's initiative, the second by human concurrence. The characteristics of each can best be viewed in relation to four topics: — — — —

God and His Actions, Humankind's State, Personal Salvation, and The Christian Life.

Let me begin with the first perspective, God's initiative, and work it through the four categories I have outlined. 1. Perspective One: God's Initiative a. God and His Actions: According to Perspective One, God is revealed as creator, elector, savior, and life-giver. He created and creates out of nothing (Gen. 1). He chooses and He says to His people, "...the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people of his own possession..." (Deut. 7:6). He is the creator of the new creation of those who are in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). His people are made holy and justified by Him (1 Cor. 6:11). He gives them life (Col. 2:13). b. Humankind's State: According to Perspective One, people are revealed as in a hopeless condition. They are lost (Luke 19:10). They are totally in the dark (John 1:5) (Jesus is the Light of the World [John 8:12]). They are sinful (while such, Christ died for them [Rom. 5:8]). Most of all, they are dead (Col. 2:13) and cannot help themselves. c. Personal Salvation: In Perspective One, this is only God's act. He died for us (Rom. 5:8); He chooses (John 15:16); He makes alive (Eph. 2:5); He saves (Luke 19:10); He finds those who are lost (Luke 15:Iff.). d. The Christian Life: This, too, is God's act, from the view of Perspective One. The chief passage here is Romans 7. We are wretched and do what we desire not to do, Paul says. We must be delivered from our body of death, saved by someone 18

Congruent with this analysis and especially helpful in many contexts is the notion of "frames of reference," so important in relativity theory. Depending upon your frame of reference, things are quite different (e.g., the length of objects, the speed of time [Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity]). Also useful is the notion of what Mark A. Jones (cf. footnote 4, above) has called the issue of "scale" (fax communication, 13 November 1998). Depending upon which scale of reality you are considering, different laws seem to apply. What we experience normally in daily life has different characteristics than what is very small or what is very large (e.g., things seem solid on a human scale; they certainly are not on a subnuclear scale). (Indeed, relativity principles appropriate to galactic movements do not apply at the subnuclear level, where quantum theory reigns, but that is a different matter.)

else, even when we are Christians!19 The Christian from this perspective is not much better off than the unbeliever, in some respects. He must still cry with David, "(You) create in me a clean heart, O God" (Ps. 51:10). Or again: "(You) purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean" (Ps. 51:7). From this perspective, sin is like cancer: it ravages the new man and he is helpless against it. He certainly does not have to be encouraged to hate it, for as Paul says in his despair: "The evil that I do not desire, that is what I do (Rom. 7:19b)...I am a terribly wretched man; who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom. 7:24).20 This first perspective seems to be the eternal one, sub specie aeternitatis, which is God's point of view, one might say. It is the one which mature consideration of one's person and of one's situation leads one to; thus, it is the position also of the desperate person who has experienced the depths (cf. Ps. 51). This is the "Einstein" view, "Einsteinian" theology, as it were; it is the perspective of "what is really21 going on." 2. Perspective Two: Human Concurrence We turn now to the second perspective, Human Concurrence. Here is an analysis of the four categories according to this perspective. a. God and His Actions: According to Perspective Two, God is revealed as a partner, one who responds to what man does. He is pleased by the sacrifices of people and responds to them (Gen. 8:21: When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor [of Noah's sacrifice] the Lord said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man...."). He is pleased by all those who fear Him and do what is good and acceptable in His sight (Acts 10:35). He is not far from us (Acts 17:27). In this perspective, God can be appealed to and does change His mind (see Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah [Gen. 18:22-33]). b. Humankind's State: In this perspective, the human state is revealed as bad, but we are not helpless and therefore not without responsibility. We are ignorant (Acts 17:30). We walk in our own ways (Acts 14:16). We are distant from God (Acts 17:27). c. Personal Salvation: In Perspective Two, we must in some way respond to our situation and to the approach of God. We can seek after Him and find Him (Acts 17:27). We are called to repent (Acts 17:30). We are called to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation (Acts 16:31). We are told to turn to the living God (Acts 14:15). d. The Christian Life: According to Perspective Two, the Christian life is one of responsible personal action. We as Christians have ability to respond positively

19

See also the third example at the beginning of this paper, including footnote 3, above. More positively put, Paul declares that God is responsible for all of the good within him. He says that he no longer lives; rather, "Christ lives within me" (Gal. 2:20). 21 Here the parallel to contemporary physics begins to break down. As noted above (page 267, including note 17), while the Einsteinian view of the universe is more "real" than the Newtonian view, it does not pretend to describe how things actually are in any objective (not to mention literal) sense. 20

and to overcome the evil in our lives. All of the exhortations in Deuteronomy and in the Pauline epistles would essentially fall into this class. Two are classic: Deuteronomy 30:11-16a, 16-18a:22 For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?" Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it .to us, that we may hear it and do it?" But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.... If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day...then you shall live and multiply... But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you this day, that you shall perish....

Romans 6:12-13: Let sin never reign in your mortal bodies...Never furnish your members as weapons for unrighteousness in sin but furnish yourselves to God as living creatures from the dead and your members weapons for righteousness for God.23

From this perspective, sin in the Christian life is like the black horse which vies with the white horse to pull the ("neutral") charioteer in his own direction. The exhortations are to the charioteer, who has the responsibility to decide in which direction he would go.24 This second perspective which we have just been describing might be called phenomenological; it is the view from within our time and from human experience. In general, it is the way things seem from our experience and the way reality strikes us daily, especially outside times of crisis. It is the way things also seem to outsiders, as one can note in the approaches taken in the evangelism efforts in Acts (see passages above). This is the "Newtonian" view, "Newtonian" theology, as it were; it is the view of the way religion and our lives strike us day by day. 3. Relationship of Perspectives Let me emphasize that, according to what I am proposing, both views are true. According to the approach I am taking, one's perspective is key Both views stand in relation to one another as antinomies. They are not contradictions; rather, depending upon your perspective, different data come into focus and move to the fore.25 Otherwise expressed, depending upon your frame of reference or scale (human or divine), 22

Joshua's famous appeal to the people of Israel (Joshua 24:14-15) to choose whom they would serve falls into this class, as well. 23 See also Romans 6:22, quoted in the third example at the beginning of this paper, above. 24 See Paul R. Raabe and James W. Voelz, "Why Exhort a Good Tree: Anthropology and Paraenesis in Romans," Concordia Journal 22:2 (April 1996): 154-163, which applies the ideas articulated here specifically to the paraenetic sections of Paul's epistle to the Romans. This article also discusses the images of the charioteer/white horse/black horse with reference to its Platonic background. 25 In other words, both views assemble data in different ways to come to different overall conclusions.

different principles seem to apply. Indeed, the relationship of the two views is well expressed by the traditional dictum: Pray as if everything depends on God; work as if everything depends upon you.26 Careful observers may notice that what I am saying has a post-modern ring to it, and they will be correct. Perspectivalism is a—if not the— feature of a post-modern approach to issues and questions. But that does not make it an incorrect approach; indeed, this is one of the helpful positives of post-modern insights into the nature of reality as such.27 C. Further Evidence I would now like to give further evidence for the position I am espousing, illustrating both "Einsteinian" and "Newtonian" expressions of theology in the Scriptures and in our hymnody. I will follow this with a number of items of application. 1. Scripture "Einstein": Matthew 5:27-28: You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

"Newton": 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

"Einstein": Hosea 6:6: For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.

"Newton": Malachi 1:6-8:

26

Charles P. Arand has analyzed the relationship this way: The perspective of Newton asks: "What" ("What should I do?"); the perspective of Einstein focuses upon the question "Why" ("Why can/can't I believe, convert, live a good life?"). 27 There are four major characteristics of post-modernism. They are: lack of belief in the superiority of reason (cf. emotions, intuition); lack of belief in objectivity (cf. perspectivalism); lack of belief in the possibility of comprehensive explanation (cf. the use of models), and loss of belief in progress, including the inevitability of progress (cf. the Carter presidency and vision). See James W. Voelz, What Does This Mean: Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World, 2nd edition (St. Louis: Concordia, 1997), 15, note 7. For the influence of post-modernism arising from and upon contemporary science, see Walter T. Andersen, Reality Isn't What It Used to Be" (New York: Harper/Row, 1990). Note his comment on page 76 that constructionist science knows only "versions of the world."

A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. You say, "How have we despised thy name?" By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, "How have we polluted it?" By thinking that the Lord's table may be despised. When you offer blind animals in the sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts.28

"Einstein": Habakkuk 3:17-18: Though the fig tree does not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.

"Newton": Psalm 30:8-12: To you, O Lord, I cried; and to the Lord I made supplication: "What profit is there in my death, if I go down to the Pit? Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness? Hear, O Lord, and be gracious to me! O Lord, be my helper!" You have turned for me my mourning into dancing; you have loosed my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, that my soul may praise you and not be silent. O Lord my God, I will give thanks to you for ever.

"Einstein": Psalm 23:3: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; he makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters; he restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. (emphasis added)

"Newton": Psalm 26:14,6-7,9,11-12: Vindicate me, O Lord, for I have walked in my integrity, and I have trusted in the Lord without wavering. Prove me, O Lord, and try me; test my heart and my mind. For your steadfast love is before my eyes, and I walk in faithfulness to you. I do not sit with false men, nor do I consort with dissemblers.... I wash my hands in innocence, and go about your altar, O Lord, singing loud a song of thanksgiving, and telling all your wondrous deeds.... Sweep me not away with sinners, nor my life with bloodthirsty men.... But as for me, I walk in my integrity; redeem me, and be gracious to me. My foot stands on level ground; in the great congregation I will bless the Lord.29

28

See also the first example in this article from Ps. 51 and footnote 1, above. This passage can also be contrasted to the Habakkuk 3:17-18 passage, above. See also Patrick D. Miller ("Deuteronomy and Psalms: Evoking a Biblical Conversation," Journal of Biblical Literature 118 [Spring, 1999]: 3-18), which develops a line of argumentation similar to what has been presented here. 29

2. Hymnody "Einstein": LW30 355, stanzas 1,3: Salvation unto us has come By God's free grace and favor; Good works cannot avert our doom, They help and save us never. Faith looks to Jesus Christ alone, Who did for all the world atone; He is our one redeemer It was a false, misleading dream That God his Law had given That sinner could themselves redeem And by their works gain heaven. The Law is but a mirror bright To bring the inbred sin to light That lurks within our nature.

"Newton": LW 356, stanzas 1,2: Drawn to the cross, which you have blessed With healing gifts for souls distressed, To find in you my life my rest, Christ Crucified, I come. How well you know my griefs and fears, Your grace abused, my misspent years! Yet now to you with contrite tears, Christ Crucified, I come.

"Einstein": LW 364, stanzas 1,3: Oh, how great is your compassion Faithful Father, God of grace That with all our fallen race In our depth of degradation You had mercy so that we Might be saved eternally! Firmly to our soul's salvation Witnesses your Spirit, Lord In your sacraments and Word. He notes the rhetorical color to appeals in many Deuteronomy and Psalms passages which we have classified as "Newtonian" (7, 9-10). 30 Lutheran Worship, prepared by The Commission on Worship of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, St. Louis: Concordia, 1982.

There he sends true consolation Giving us the gift of faith That we fear not hell nor death.

"Newton": LW 365, stanzas 1,2:31 Christ be my leader by night as by day Safe through the darkness, for he is the way. Gladly I follow, my future his care; Darkness is daylight when Jesus is there. Christ be my teacher in age as in youth, Drifting or doubting, for he is the truth. Grant me to trust him; though shifting as sand, Doubt cannot daunt me; in Jesus I stand.

Note that both perspectives can often occur within close proximity. Here are two examples, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament: "Newton": Psalm 25:1-3: To you, O Lord, I lift up my soul; O my God, in you I trust, let me not be put to shame; let not my enemies exult over me. Yea, let none that wait for you be put to shame; let them be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous.

"Einstein": Psalm 25:4-8: Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me thy paths. Lead me in thy truth, and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long. Be mindful of your mercy, O Lord, and of your steadfast love, for they have been from of old. Remember not the sins of my youth, or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for your goodness' sake, O Lord! Good and upright is the Lord; therefore, he instructs sinners in the way.

"Newton": Philippians 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

"Einstein": Philippians 2:13: for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 31

Those familiar with the common tunes associated with these hymns will notice an interesting phenomenon: tunes associated with "Newtonian'' theology (Dunstan for "Drawn to the Cross" and Slane for "Christ be My Leader") tend to be more immediately appealing, if not more "emotional" in nature, while "Einsteinian" hymns tend to be paired with more cerebral and less immediately appealing tunes (Es ist das Heil for "Salvation unto Us Has Come" and Ach, was soll ich Sünder machen for "Oh, How Great is Your Compassion").

III. Application Now, if what I have presented is a correct analysis, what does this mean for us as interpreters of Scripture, as preachers, and as everyday Christians? First, there are several important considerations for Biblical interpretation. — Some texts are "Newtonian," some are "Einsteinian." Don't try to make one into the other. When Jesus says, e.g., in Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven," this is a "Newtonian" statement. It is similar to Paul's assertion in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that thieves, idolaters, homosexuals, and adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. A typical Lutheran exegesis and sermon will do all sorts of exegetical gymnastics with the Matthew passage from chapter 7, usually winding up with the conclusion that "to do the Father's will" is to believe. This is a doubtful approach and understanding. Our Lord's words are directed against hypocrisy here, against the possibility of "cheap grace," and they should be taken for what they are. Similar is his zinger in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us!32 — Much of the Bible is "Newtonian." All of Paul's paraenesis is. And we avoid that like the plague. Consider Paul's stewardship discussion in 2 Cor. 8-9. It is highly phenomenological/"Newtonian." As a pastor or as a member of the Board of Stewardship in your church, would you use Paul's approach in your congregation? Would you say something like this?: I have boasted to the people in St. Louis how much we at St. John's in Centerville are going to give to Synod and to Missions. I'm talking to our stewardship board about getting those offerings ready now, because, when President Barry comes in October, I don't want to be embarrassed, to say nothing of you!

But that's exactly what St. Paul says to the Corinthians, with reference to the Macedonians (2 Cor. 9:1-5). Should it, perhaps, be considered? We can notice two things, however, in the theology of Scripture. On the one hand, when an in-depth theological analysis of a problem is being done, "Newton" recedes and "Einstein" comes to the fore. Thus, the first part of the book of Romans, which deals with how we are saved and our position before God, is "Einsteinian" through and through: "All have sinned and are short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace" (Rom. 3:23-24). On the other hand, when the two models occur in close proximity, generally "Newton" precedes "Einstein." This was the case with both examples given before from Psalm 25 and Philippians 2. 33It seems to indicate that phenomenological consideration precedes in-depth analysis, and also that at some point it is important to proceed on from phenomenological to in-depth analysis. Using

32 33

See also the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Matt. 18:23-35. But see the first example of this article, from Ps. 51, above.

the phraseology of the book of Hebrews (Heb. 5:12), we must at some point move from milk to solid food. The second overall application concerns denominations. It seems to me that entire denominations are oriented to one or the other of the perspectives I have described. — Lutherans, it shouldn't surprise anyone to know, tend to take the first, the "Einsteinian" perspective. We look at mankind's deepest need and to the "real" answers to all questions. And this is certainly good. As a result, however, we often seem irrelevant and ineffective to outsiders and in people's daily lives. By contrast, Lutheran theology is unparalleled in times of crisis. The Lutheran challenge, I believe, is to get people to see their real situation but to be relevant to events in their ordinary, daily lives in doing so. — The Arminian Reformed (e.g., Baptists and Methodists) and, often, Roman Catholics tend to the second, "Newtonian" perspective. It plays well—it seems relevant—on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, it is where people live everyday and how they experience their daily lives. (E.g., it does, generally, seem to us that we can choose to obey God's will or not.) This perspective tends, however, to give a false impression of what one's situation is from God's point of view. The task of those taking this focus is to understand the heart of Scripture and of the God/man relationship, all the while retaining their relevance in the lives of people. Otherwise expressed and to analyze the denominational situation according to our physics analogy: Lutherans tend to give an E=MC2 answer to a basic question concerning the path of striking billiard balls, which may be true but may well seem irrelevant and, therefore, may well prove to be ineffective rhetorically. Those embracing the second perspective as primary tend to get boxed into "Newtonian" analysis even when a fundamental, sub-nuclear physics question is at hand—such as, what the nature of my relationship to God really is—so that their analysis tends, in the end, to be superficial. The third application concerns movements of various kinds across denominations such as Promise-Keepers, James Dobson, "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD), and much of what passes as "church growth" and "contemporary" worship. All of these groups or movements seem to be explained by our analysis. Generally, they are "Newtonian."34 Lutherans always get excited by such phenomena, because the theology 34

Consider, e.g., a recent piece in the Concordia Seminary student newspaper, Spectrum 31 (February 12, 1999), in which a high school student, responding to something asserted in a previous issue concerning WWJD, writes: I have a bracelet that I try to wear every day because it is a great reminder for me. A couple times this school year I was tempted to look at my neighbor's paper, when I came to a hard question on a test. But instead of my eyes drifting on the other person's paper they drifted to the bracelet. Once I saw the bracelet, I realized that I was about to do something I knew was wrong, and so I didn't do it. Here we see "Newton" in all his glory!

of these groups or movements is seen as shallow or incorrect or both. In fact, that's always the way Newton seems to Einstein (shallow and incorrect), yet it is hard to convince those who are testing falling apples that the location of an apple cannot be determined along with its momentum! The problem is, those involved in these "Newtonian" movements begin to think that their theological analysis is a "sub-nuclear" theological analysis of the way things really are, and that is shallow and ultimately wrong.35 Finally, for pastors, an application concerning preaching: — Our people are "Newtonian" in their daily lives, even as are we all. A "Newtonian" sermon is a practical sermon to most of them. It is tough to live in the world of "Einstein" on a daily basis (viz., "I can do nothing good; all of my deeds are rubbish; every effort I make and every charitable thing I do is an abomination before our God.") It is "unreal," "impractical," and too taxing. Recognize this. But recognize this, as well: "Newton" doesn't "deliver the goods" in times of crisis. There are no good "Newtonian" sermons at the side of a child's funeral casket. — The third use of the Law is essentially a "Newtonian" use, as is the first use. The second use is "Einsteinian." To use the third use of the Law at the end of a sermon is in some ways to switch categories as much as it is to switch from Gospel to Law. The trick here is not to allow people to believe that any "Newtonian" statements are thoroughgoing, "sub-nuclear" analyses of reality.36 IV. Conclusion Let me conclude by saying that Lutherans, of all people, ought to be able to deal with antinomy in theology. The Law/Gospel distinction is antinomous, as is the relationship between God's justice and his lovingkindness, and, most starkly, the relationship between deus absconditus and deus revelatus.37 Major metaphors for

35

It is also necessary to observe that even on a "Newtonian" level the theology of such groups or movements may not be Biblical. The comments in this paragraph are definitely not intended to say that everything that, e.g., Promise Keepers teaches is all right and that it's just a matter of perspective. But this is a separate matter. 36 For further homiletical considerations, see Raabe and Voelz, "Why Exhort a Good Tree," 162-163. 37 See especially William C. Placherà important book The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking About God Went Wrong (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996), which seeks to demonstrate that Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin all developed systems of theology which struggled with the contrast between the divine and human point of view. Indeed, his presentation of Luther's understanding of deus absconditus and deus revelatus is quite congruent with what is argued in this paper (51): ...Luther was struggling with a legitimate problem of perspective or standpoint. From God's perspective, the pieces do fit together, and one could see God at work, even in the trials of our lives. But no human theologian can occupy that perspective, and so, even to make such confident claims is to reach beyond faith. See also his discussion of Calvin's struggles with the problem of the will(s) of God and the question of predestination (63-64).

God's saving actions in the sacred Scriptures also stand in antinomy to one another, e.g.: — God rescues His people from evil forces with their bondage and destruction: sin/death/and the devil = Christ the Victor. — God saves us from Himself/from His own condemnation of us through the sacrifice of Christ = Christ the Victim. (The Gospels, Acts, and Paul all talk both ways in various places.) Note again how one perspective is more phenomenological, experiential, and day-to-day, while the other is counter-intuitive, more fundamental, and must simply be believed. Right now we do see through a glass darkly. It will be glorious on the last day to see some things face to face.

Figure 1

Dr. James W. Voelz is Professor of Exegetical Theology and Dean of the Graduate School at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO