"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