Brink - Reforming the Doctrine of God (Shults)

8/20/2019 Brink - Reforming the Doctrine of God (Shults)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brink-reforming-the-doctrine-of-god-shults 1/5

Ars DisputandiVolume 6 (2006)

: 1566–5399

Gijsbert van den Brink ,

Reforming the Doctrine of God

By F. LeRon Shults

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005; 326 pp.; pb. $ 35.00 (£ 19.99); :0–8028–2988–0.

[1] Having published some remarkable studies during the past couple of years, F. Leron Shults (born 1965) is regarded as a ‘rising star’ in contemporaryProtestant systematic theology. His Reforming the Doctrine of God is a sequel to hisearlier Reforming Theological Anthropology (2003). Whereas the latter book spelt outthe implications of the ‘turn to relationality’ for the Christian understanding of human being, in this newer study the concept of relationality is made central to theinterpretation of the Christian understanding of God. In this way, Shults attempts‘to conserve the intuitions of the living biblical tradition by liberating them forilluminative and transformative dialogue’ (1) within our present-day culturalsetting. Such liberation is necessary, he argues, since much of our theologicallanguage has been emprisoned in early modern categories that constrain theproclamation of the Christian message.

[2]

In part I of the book, Shults devotes separate chapters to three of thesemodern categories which shaped significant streams of subsequent theology: the(mutually connected) ideas of God as immaterial substance, single subject, andfirst cause. The early modern emphasis on substance dualism, autonomous sub- jectivity and past-oriented causality forced the Protestant scholastics (among othertheologians) to adopt these ideas, since, clearly, their alternatives – God as ma-terial being, as impersonal, and as an immanent part of the cause-eff ect nexus– ran counter to the biblical Scriptures. Structuring the doctrine of God in thisway, however, led to many intractable conceptual problems concerning God’sforeknowledge, predestination, timelessness, etc. Therefore, the underlying di-

chotomies (material versus immaterial being etc.) should be questioned. Shultsattempts to show that, given recent developments in philosophy, science and bib-lical scholarship that contributed to the turn to relationality, we are now no longercompelled to structure the doctrine of God in terms of these either-or dichotomies(11). The philosophical, scientific and biblical-scholarship developments neatlyconverge in the denial of the appropriateness of each of the three early moderncategories in question. Biblical scholarship, for example, has pointed out thatthe Bible depicts God as a dynamic presence rather than an abstract divine ‘sub-stance’, as a unity of Father, Son and Spirit rather than a single subject, and asa future-oriented God who realizes his Kingdom rather than as the first cause of the world.

c July 10, 2006, Ars Disputandi. If you would like to cite this article, please do so as follows:Gijsbert van den Brink, ‘Review of Reforming the Doctrine of God,’ Ars Disputandi [http://www.ArsDisputandi.org] 6 (2006), paragraph number.

http://www.arsdisputandi.org/







Gijsbert van den Brink: Review of Reforming the Doctrine of God

[3] In part II the ‘late modern theological trajectories’ which led to theretrieval of these biblical intuitions (and, therefore, to the demise of the earlymodern categories) are discussed in more detail. Its three chapters are respec-

tively devoted to the recovery of the notion of ‘intensive Infinity’, the revival of Trinitarian doctrine, and the renewing of eschatological ontology. In each chaptera similar route is followed. First, Shults tries to show how these three notions func-tioned in patristic, medieval and Reformation theology. Next, he discusses theirtwenty-century reconstructions, by exploring the contributions of three leadingReformed (Barth, Moltmann, Gunton) and Lutheran (Jenson, Jüngel, Pannenberg)theologians, followed by a short survey of some representatives of the broaderecumenical spectrum (Rahner, Zizioulas, feminist, liberation and Pentecostal the-ologians). Consistently downplaying the many and serious diff erences betweenall these voices, it is suggested that, basically, all of them point in the same direc-tion, which is finally described more fully in a fifth section. In this way, Shultsdevelops the notions of what he calls intensive Infinity, robust Trinity, and ab-solute Futurity. As distinct from the mathematical concept of extensive infinity,intensive Infinity indicates a qualitatively diff erent way of being which transcends– or, rather, encompasses – the dialectic of immanence and transcendence. It is ex-perienced as an intensive powerful redeeming presence wholly beyond our finitecontrol. Rather than from the concept of a single subject, a robust (doctrine of the)Trinity starts from the perichoretic relationality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit towhich the New Testament testifies. Absolute futurity does not define God’s futureover against the past and the present (which would still represent God as a part of the temporal process, and simply replace predeterminism by postdeterminism),

but in a way that embraces and enables all modes of time. It is the eternal life of the trinitarian persons in which creatures are being called to share, and which isthe eschatological goal of creation.

[4] In part III, finally, Shults weaves together these three related themes in acreative attempt to re-form the doctrine of God. He makes clear that the theologi-cal trajectories of part II open up a conceptual space in which the doctrine of God,far from coming through as a piece of outworn metaphysics, can be understoodas gospel. Focusing on the classical attributes of omniscience, omnipotence andomnipresence, Shults tries to free these notions from what he sees as barren dis-cussions about foreknowledge, predestination and timelessness. He relates them

to divine faith(fulness), love and hope respectively, thus making combinationsof classical ‘transcendent’ and ‘consdescendent’ divine properties in a way thatreminds us of the Dutch theologian Hendrikus Berkhof (Christian Faith, 1990). Inhighly original reflections, he tries to flesh out these combinations from a biblical-theological perspective, thus bringing the material concerns of Christology andPneumatology into his presentation of the doctrine of God. In this way, he makesthe most (even more than Pannenberg, in my opinion) of the recent rediscoveryof trinitarian doctrine as a structuring principle in Christian theology. The threechapters in this part end with sections on the gospel-character of the doctrines of divine knowing, acting and being respectively. Indeed, here we find moving pas-

sages in which the author, rather than trying to establish compelling ‘arguments’

Ars Disputandi 6 (2006), http://www.ArsDisputandi.org






for the existence of God, nicely elucidates from within how the Christian doctrineof God means good news in connection with the sensibilities and anxieties of ourtime.

[5] Reforming the Doctrine of God is a challenging and thought-provoking book. It off ers a fine example of what it is to do systematic theology, and to do itin a fruitful way for our time. Itsdiff erent strands are remarkably well-documented,the author often giving first-hand quotations from his vast knowledge rather thandrawing upon secondary literature. Shults superbly masters the three disciplineswithin which the systematic theologian should be well-versed, viz. biblical schol-arship, the history of doctrine, and philosophy; and he knows how to relate thesefields to each other in highly creative and enlightening ways. In so doing, hefulfills what he rightly considers to be the theologian’s primary task: to articulatethe gospel of the biblical God within our own contemporary setting. Moreover,

there is a strong positive tenor in Shults’ expositions. Even where he has todenounce certain strands of the theological tradition (as is the case with earlymodern theology, especially in its scholastic brand) he is keen not to be overlycritical, or to scapegoat its representatives. Rather, he looks for resources in allparts of the tradition which are helpful in developing a Christian doctrine of Godthat is true to the biblical message and relates it in a viable and inviting way tothe plausibility structures of contemporary Western society.

[6] Having said all this, and passing over some small infelicities (such asthe misspelling of some Latin and Greek terms, 226, 261), I still have some major

concerns and questions. The first of these will perhaps be of special interestto the readers of this journal, since it concerns Shults’ critical engagement withpresent-day analytical philosophy of religion. Shults suggests that by takingseriously the turn to relationality it becomes possible to dissolve the antinomiesin which standard discussions about God’s foreknowledge, predestination andtimelessness have become entangled. For example, Shults claims that, rather thantaking sides in the Calvinist-Arminian debate about divine foreknowledge andcreaturely freedom, he is able to escape this antinomy by developing a full-blowntrinitarian account of God’s knowledge. ‘We may think of God’s pro-gnosis, then,as an acknowledging embrace of human creatures, calling them to a new life

of knowing and being known in the Spirit of Christ’ (224). However, if God’sactivity in this regard is restricted to calling (or ‘inviting’, as he puts it elsewhere),then in fact Shults simply opts for the Arminian horn of the dilemma. Theremay be nothing wrong with that, but clearly the author’s suggestion that he isdissolving or overcoming the dilemma is simply false. It is not so easy to reallyovercome the classical problems of theology! Although Shults has convinced methat analytical philosophers of religion have to take the recent developments insystematic theology more seriously, I don’t see how this might make their worksuperfluous.

[7] Secondly, the final part of Shults’ book suff ers from a lack of system-atic rigor. Shults does not always make it completely clear why he makes the







particular conceptual connections he does (e.g. between omniscience, the Nameof God and divine faithfulness; or between omnipotence, love, the cosmologicalargument and creaturely moral desire). As a result, the reader wonders why al-

ternative options are not explored. For example, what would happen if we relateomnipresence to faithfulness rather than to hope, or omniscience to love ratherthan to faithfulness? Would this really make a serious diff erence? If not, then itseems the choices Shults makes are to some extent arbitrary. If instead it doesmake a diff erence, then this is not pointed out in a convincing way.

[8] Thirdly, by drawing rather coarse lines through the history of thought,glossing over the many diff erences between contemporary developments andthinkers, does not Shults create a one-sided picture which obscures serious ten-sions? For example, developments in contemporary science, philosophy and biblical scholarship are represented as pointing unambiguously into one and thesame direction – viz. the crucial importance of the concept of relationality –whereas in fact these developments are much more diversified (science oftencontradicting biblical theology etc.). Or, to give another example, early modernProtestant theologians from the voluntarist tradition are said to make all kinds of distinctions about the divine will (76); John Calvin, however, who was perhapsmore of a voluntarist than anyone else, consistently resisted each bifurcation of thedivine will, arguing that there is no point in diff erentiating between e.g. God’sactive will and passive permission. In order to tell his coherent overall story,Shults ignores such specific characteristics that deviate from the general pattern.

[9] Fourthly and finally, although Shults wants to avoid the impressionthat theology is developing in a linear progressive way, so that twentieth-century

theology is nearer to the truth than its seventeenth-century counterpart, he doeslargely depict the story of modern theology as a success-story. This picture doesnot, however, sit well with the declining influence of faith and theology on thesecularizing Western mind. We might ask whether all the ills of theology shouldreally be relegated to the seventeenth century, since perhaps some of them haveto be attributed precisely to late modern theology. For example, if we countShults’ own project as another example of late modern theology, we are struck by the near-total absence of the doctrine of sin. Throughout the book Shultsdirects some criticisms at his more conservative fellow-evangelicals, but it seemsto me that they have a point if they regret this deviation from classical Reformed

theology. The overall-picture which Shults presents includes nearly all classicalloci (from the doctrine of creation to eschatology), but by leaving out any seriousreflection on the impact of sin it just becomes too smooth and harmonious. Shultsrightly points out that philosophers of religion should also pay attention to ‘theproblem of good’ (‘The resistance to . . . the ministry of Jesus was strongestamong those who had the “goods” of earthly life’, 250) instead of exclusivelyfocusing on the problem of evil. However, he himself might have taken thenotions of evil and sin more seriously. By largely ignoring them, he conjuresup a rather superficial universalism which hardly takes into account the manyunsolved riddles of history. Sceptical European readers might even be tempted

to find in Shults’ book another demonstration of the proverbial optimism of the







American mind. If the trinitarian God is continuously drawing his creatures intohis perfect communion by means of his omnipotent love, why is there so muchresistance and why does the process last so long?

[10] Nevertheless, these quarrels and questions only illustrate that Shultshas written a most challenging and thought-provoking book indeed, the readingof which is without doubt very rewarding.




Documents

Brink - Reforming the Doctrine of God (Shults)