Contextualization of the 1700's

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz "Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese" was originally written in French and had not been translated into English until the 1960's. Leibniz was a brilliant man whose influence is still felt today in numerous scientific disciplines. He was a firm believer in the power of reason and believed that reason, "would eventually bring everyone to the true faith, i.e., Christianity." (Leibniz pg. 15) Since the original text was translated from French, and had existed in a German translation, the translators of the English version provide a lengthy introduction to the text in order to lay a proper foundation for the discourse. The introduction provides context for Leibniz's work on the natural theology of the Chinese and illuminates the difficulty that surround the translation of a work that has ambiguous references to Chinese terminology. Although Leibniz never traveled to China himself, he had detailed correspondence with five different Catholic priests that were living and serving in China.  

The dilemma that he faced was that two of the priests he was corresponding with saw value in the Chinese culture and exhorted the papacy to allow some of these customs to be retained within the local church and to not require the renunciation of Chinese customs in order to be saved and a part of the Church.  He believed that the ancient Chinese had a conception of God that was similar to the Catholic Church and the missionaries and priests should be using Chinese forms and terms in conveying the gospel message.  

The ancient Chinese equivalent to God, according to Leibniz, was the "Li."  According to his interpretation of the ancient writings he interacted with the Li "is the prime mover and ground of all other things." (Leibniz pg. 57)  The Li is the basis for all reason and the foundation of nature.  Father de S. Marie, one of the three priests who opposed the retention of Chinese culture in the church, understood the Li as the "Law and universal Order."  It is what sustains the natural order and reproduction of animals, however, it does not reside within creation.  Leibniz saw a direct correlation between the "Natura Naturans" of Western thought and "the Nature" of the Chinese thought.  He goes on to argue that his understanding passive "prime matter" is consistent with the active powers that are attributed to the Li.  

The culmination of Leibniz's thought and emotions surrounding the relevance of Chinese thought and the revelatory extent of the natural theology of the Chinese is found well before the end of this essay.  He believes that many Christian writers have made claims that are striking similar to those of the Chinese yet have not been condemned as non-Christian.  "Thus I find that everything that has been said against the ancient Chinese to be only groundless suspicions." (Leibniz pg. 133)  This is not to express that he believes all ancient Chinese thought should be accepted whole hog without correction or revision within a Christian worldview.  Since Leibniz is an accomplished scientist and mathematician, he understands the advancements in these two fields that have led to a better understanding of nature and the God who is responsible for creating the natural world.  He argues that the Chinese need to be introduced to the validity of "the Macrocosm and the Microcosm" in order to have a fuller understanding of God (Li). 

Leibniz recognized and appreciated the morality that he saw within the Chinese culture and a natural theology that had been established for nearly thirty centuries.  When speaking of the condemnation of their natural theology he said, "It would be highly foolish and presumptuous on our part, having newly arrived compared with them, and scarcely out of barbarianism, to want to condemn such an ancient doctrine because it does not appear to agree at first glance with our ordinary scholastic notions." (Leibniz pg. 59)  This thesis is at the core of the comparative theology, pluralistic discussions, and the contextualization efforts in missiology/theology.  What are we to do with doctrine and the practice of doctrine that mirrors our understanding of Christianity, but does not play our language games?  An appropriate understanding of natural theology allows for the fruitful conversation and understanding that Leibniz advocated nearly three centuries ago.   

Since this is a brief overview of Leibniz's "Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese," I was forced to leave out some intriguing aspects of his argument and some crucial parallels that need far more space than allotted in this essay.  One of the key parallels that I would encourage readers to examine, that I have not unpacked, is Leibniz's interaction with Confucius' teachings.  He believes that some disciples of Confucius have distorted the great thinkers true thoughts and the relationship between Confucius and Christianity is much closer than the Catholic Church has led Christians to believe.  The thoughts of Leibniz are as applicable today as they were in the 1700's.  Christians must lend their ear to wise teachers like Leibniz in understanding how we can dialogue with other belief systems and find common ground that will allow us to have a greater understanding of who God is and how he is working throughout the world, and in particular, in the realm of natural theology.  God's revelation does not reside solely within the west and we must seek to cultivate the fruitful dialogue that Leibniz had in the early 1700's.  It is quite clear, God has revealed himself to the Chinese, and all nations, through the natural order, now the question becomes, to what extent? 

The agony of the edge.

ABC's Wide World of Sports coined the phrase, "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat."  Yesterday I finished my second marathon and experienced the agony of the edge.  I had my eyes set on running a 3:45 marathon and trained all summer with that goal in mind.  When the gun sounded at the start of the race my ego took over and I was convinced that I could catch up and run with the 3:40 group.  I mean really, what is five minutes faster over 26.2 miles?  A LOT!  I caught up to the group at mile five and felt amazing.  Here I was running out of my mind and feeling like a champ.  The rain had started to move in and began to pick up over the next few miles.  By mile eight we were running in the middle of a Minnesota monsoon with small rivers gushing down the gutters of the Parkway.  The rain really was an afterthought to the blistering pace 

that I had was maintaining.  

The superstar running bubble that I was living in began to deflate as the 3:40 pace group slowly inched away from me.  At the halfway mark I had turned in my fastest half marathon by over four minutes, but came face to face with the consequences from my previous actions.  If you have ever been driving too fast on a snowy/icy road and began to slide you experience the "UH OH" of terror.  You know you are going into the ditch, and there is nothing you can do but hold on and hope you are not injured.  I knew I had gone out WAY too fast and had pushed beyond my lactic threshold with 13 miles left to run.  As I reached the 19 mile mark and crossed over the Mississippi river, I was still on my 3:45 pace, but was running on fumes.  

The train derailed at mile 20 when my right quad knotted up tighter than a fishing line on a Bass Masters pole.  I had no choice but to pull over and try to massage/stretch out the cramp.  As I raised my leg to stretch my quad my hamstring balled up like a frightened armadillo.  In order to stretch my quads I had to stretch my hamstrings.  This process continued over the next six miles of the race.  Every half a mile I couldn't bear the pain any longer and was forced to stop and massage/stretch if I wanted to continue moving forward.  Spectators would try to encourage me as I stopped, but what they did not realize was that no amount of encouragement could overcome my cramping muscles.  Physiologically I was SPENT.  All I could think about was the eighteen months of getting up before the sun to log miles was all for naught.  I had wasted all of my training by allowing my ego to get me out of my race plan.  In the words of Napolean Dynamite, "You IDIOT!"

My pace had decreased from 8 minute miles to a 16 minute mile and I was broken.  Quit?  NEVER!  There was no way I was ever going to quit this race.  I had just watched "Touching the Void," a documentary about a European climber who broke his leg atop a peak in Peru, fell into a cravass and was left for dead by his partner.  He didn't quit.  He spent four days sliding himself down this mountain with a broken leg back to his camp so that he could live.  I was NOT going to quit.  As I crossed the finish line I was wrecked physically and emotionally.  All I wanted to do was curl up in a ball along the grass, but I knew I had to eat and keep moving.

  Once I saw Nikki and the kids I was brought back to reality.  I had just ran a marathon!  Nikki wanted to hug me, and the kids, in their costumes, just wanted their daddy to hold them.  They could have cared less if I had ran a 2:30 marathon of a 5:30 marathon.  They love me for who I am and are proud of what I had just accomplished, and that is what it is all about.  I tell people all the time that the marathon experience is far more about the journey than the destination.  It is about getting up at 4:30 to go run 24 miles on your day off.  It is about soaking in 55 degree ice baths to try to recover so you can run more tomorrow.  It is about doing something that you want to do and have to earn.  So I sit here one day removed from my train wreck and ask myself one thing, what marathon will I run next?

New is not always new!

So I have been intermingling school and my life on this blog, but the reality is that it is ALL my life. I hope to be posting another natural theology book review in the next few days, but thought I would tease it a little in advance. I am currently reading "A Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese" by Gottfried Leibniz. His original paper was written in the early 1700's but took over two centuries to be translated into a language I can read (English). The thing that I have found most fascinating about Leibniz's thought in this book is how apropo it is for our current pluralistic world. He was engaging with ancient Chinese writers and Jesuit priest that were attempting to understand how God had revealed himself and and through the Chinese culture. Two of the five priest penned a letter to the Pope in Rome arguing for a contextualization of the gospel message, but were quickly rejected by the papacy. Rome found it to be impossible to allow the Chinese to continue living out their culture, and become members of the Holy Roman Church. This disgusted Leibniz and certainly created a grotesque fracture in the relationship of countless Chinese and the message of Christ.
I do not think that it is ironic that we are discussing similar questions today in our churches and our seminaries. God is working in all contexts and locations on His Earth, and it is essential that we seek His wisdom and discernment in understanding on the "essential" message He is trying to convey to us. We like to think that the questions we are wrestling with are some how new and only relevant to "our time," but this is clearly NOT true. We need to be seeking out the wisdom of those who have already engaged the topics that we are struggling with. To use the cliche, we do not need to reinvent the wheel on most issues. Scientific advances are something completely different, but we are not talking about science here. I charge you to take some time when you are faced with a perplexing question or troubling conflict and seek out some wisdom from the past because chances are others have dealt with it too.

House and home.

This past weekend I went to visit my mom (and Ben, Kim, Isaiah, Dom, and Lincoln) in Ames Iowa. My mom recently moved to Ames and purchased a new house that she now calls home. As we drove to Ames my wife and I wondered what it would be like to be in my mom's new house and in a town that was home to a portion of my family, but not me. I have often wondered about the question, "Where are you from?" and the saying, "Home is where the heart is." Well, this weekend I was able to fully understand those two simple, yet complex sentences.

As we pulled into my mom's new driveway I did not know how I would feel upon stepping through her front door. Would it feel like my home or would it feel strange and foreign to me? Entering through the front porch I realized that my mother's home will always feel like home to me. The same old couch my brothers and I used to wrestle on placed securely behind the cedar chest that Ben spent days refinishing in the garage at 404 East 15th street. The white house that is deemed the residence of my mom is not my home, my home exists wherever my mom and her things are located. Looking around the new house I was drawn back to our old house in Yankton and the memories of vaccumming under the dining room table, and trying not to brake the white wash basin in the bathroom. I am certain that my mom will move away from Ames soon and buy a new house, but she will never need to buy a new home.

As for the answer to where I am from...well, lets just say I will always be the Displaced Dakotan from Yankton. I have lived numerous places around the country, but will always be from the first capital of the Dakota Territory that is nestled along the Missouri river.

What would you give for what you love?

Yesterday I received my October edition of Runner's World magazine, which I feverishly fingered through to see what the highlights were going to be for this particular issue.  The first article that caught my eye was entitled "Life and Limb."  It chronicles the lengths Dr. Tom White went through to retain his ability to walk, run, hike, and simply live the life he wants.  Oh, did I mention that Tom had to have a portion of his left leg amputated to retain the life he desired?  

Tom was a national champion cross country runner in his collegiate years and had his senior season of cross country and track robbed from him by a drunk driver.  While riding home from work one summer evening, Tom was clipped by a drunk driver and had his left tibia and fibula severed to the point of near amputation.  He begged the attending physician to not cut off his leg, but save it so that he could continue to run.  After intense rehab and recovery Tom had made a full recovery and had become an ultramarathoner who was competing in races of 50+ miles.  However, Tom's leg could not last forever, and after 26 years of running on a "patched tire" he could barely walk without significant pain.  There was really only one option for Tom if he was to continue his active lifestyle, remove the malfunctioning portion of his leg.  So he did.  After months of contemplation and doctor appointments, it was finally time to remove a portion of Tom's left leg and foot.  This was hardly the end of the story.  Tom spent months in rehab trying to learn how to walk again with his new prosthetic leg and wondering if he really had made the right decision.  Although he was having to learn how to walk again, he was bound and determined to become a runner again.  Last year, on a trip to Europe, Tom did just that, became a runner again.

This story of grit and determination really made me wonder if I would ever a limb removed, in order to retain the ability to participate in an activity that I love.  Would you choose to have a limb amputated to continue participating in an activity that you love?  What do you love so much that you would give a major piece of your body for?  Is there anything you can't live without that would cause you to become an amputee?  Is this guy crazy?  Does Scripture not speak of gaining the whole world yet forfeiting your soul?  How does that Scripture inform your thinking about this story??  I have to say that I would make the same decision Tom made!

Running Distinctions?

If you have ever seen two motorcycles pass one another on the highway, you may have noticed them wave at one another as if they knew each other. "The wave," is an unspoken part of the motorcycle culture that demonstrates the common respect and comorodery that exist between those who ride on two wheels. I thought that same cultural practice was present within the running world, but have found my theory in need of adaptation over the past few weeks. I recently journeyed down through a prestigious portion of St. Paul where I knew many runners frequented and expected to be warmly welcomed by the other early morning athletes. I was sadly mistaken. Most people that I encountered along my route would look right passed me as if I was one of light poles that lined Summit Ave. I attempted to make eye contact, smile, and deliver a "good morning" to all those who ran by me, however, few and far between would return a greeting. I was shocked and disapointed by the cold shoulder that I recieved time and time again. Were these people not hearing me? Did they not see the smile on my face? Were they in the zone and dead to their surroundings?
I thought about this phenomenon for a number of days and sought out to test it again on Tuesday, in my neighborhood, on the trails of Roseville. The first runner I encountered I gave a warm smile and "hello!" Sure enough, they smiled back and greeted me with a "hello" in return! Maybe this was an issolated incident, but the next runner proved that theory wrong. Each runner, or walker, that I encountered would return my greeting with at least a smile, making me think that there is a difference between the runners who frequent local trails, and those who choose to run in highly touted areas of the metro. So I began to think, the people on the local trails run for the love of running and enjoy the company of a fellow runner, while the people running in high profile areas are running to be seen running. They do not care about the larger running community and the comrodery that we all share with one another. I hope that I am wrong, but encourage you to test my theory. The next time that you are out for a run, wave at all the fellow runners and walkers, and see what happens. Do they see you? Do they care about your shared passion? I am anxious to hear what you find, and hope that you can prove my theory wrong!

Analysis of "Natural Theology" by Emil Brunner

A Monumental Conflict Between Friends

The question that is at the forefront of Natural Theology is, "Do humans have the capacity or ability to receive revelation from God, through nature, apart from Christ and/or the biblical text?" Emil Brunner and Karl Barth were not only contemporaries, but friends, that is, until Brunner’s pamphlet on natural theology hit the press and openly attacked the stance of his friend Barth. In this post I will provide an overview of both Brunner and Barth’s positions on the topic of natural theology followed by a critique of their arguments. The aim of this essay is to provide the reader with a concise understanding of Natural Theology and encourage personal reflection on the topic of natural theology both inside and outside of the Church.

Brunner’s main focus in his pamphlet is on the imago Dei and the capacity to which humans still posses that image of God after the fall and corruption as a result of the fall. He contends that humanity has not lost the “function or calling”[1] as image bearers, but it has been tainted by sin and continues to exist within the sinful human being. The relationship of God and man is the key component of his thesis. Brunner goes on to argue that Scripture itself “upbraids man for not acknowledging”[2] the revelation that is seen through the creation. The capacity of humans to be addressed, to know, and to have responsibility are three essential characteristics of a human being that must be present by definition and in that as image bearers. In addition, the effects of the fall are not just felt within humanity, but nature as a whole has been affected both objectively and subjectively. “But it is not affected so much as to render the will of God, the “rule” of nature invisible.”[3]

Since God has given us two forms of revelation, natural revelation and the revelation in Christ, according to Brunner, the focus must shift away from whether or not natural theology (revelation) is possible and towards the relationship between the revelation in Christ and that in nature. For Brunner, Christ is the only avenue through which one is able to access the true “theologia naturalis.” The objective natural knowledge of God that can be obtained through nature is capable of leading one to Christ and providing further understanding of who God is once abiding in the grace of Christ. He points to the Reformers, in contrast to Roman Catholic doctrine, to lean on their belief that “no statement concerning nature can be quite correct unless Christ be taken into account.” [4] Christ is always the culmination of natural revelation and the giver of divine revelation, but Brunner does not seek to extinguish any value of natural theology in the lives of humans and the life of the Church.

In addition, he seeks to make it clear there has been significant damage done by misguided natural theology; however he believed that the distortion and corruption of natural theology should not cause the Church to all together abolish it. He in fact applauds Barth for his vehement defense of the faith from perversions that have arisen out of natural theology. When speaking on the misguided natural theologies of the past and present he said, “The fact that there is a false apologetic way of making contact does not mean that there is not a right way.”[5] The overall belief of Brunner is that God does reveal himself through nature, but one is not able to attain a salvific knowledge of God outside of Christ and nature will never be able to provide humanity with a “true” knowledge of God.

The area of natural theology was dramatically changed when Karl Barth entered the discussion. Barth had a particular disdain for natural theology and the title of his response to Brunner was simply, NO! He believed that natural theology risked the “ultimate truth” of the Church and must be stood against on all sides. “Every attempt to assert a general revelation has to be rejected.”[6] For Barth, all of theology centered on Christ and the cross, and to seek to understand anything apart from Christ was futile and heretical.

The main argument of Barth against Brunner is that of the ability of corrupt humanity. He takes particular contention with Brunner’s idea of “preserving grace.” Barth sees “preserving grace” in direct contradiction with the Reformers concept of sola gratia. The reason why he has such a difficult time with a preserving grace is because of the value it gives to the “natural ordinances,” as defined by Brunner, and their necessary role in God’s overall plan for humanity and creation. He goes on to argue that Brunner contradicts himself when speaking of the capacity of humans to do good being lost, yet the capacity for revelation remaining. The illustration that he uses is of a person drowning and in need of a lifeguard to save them from death. If the drowning victim is able to provide any assistance for the lifeguard, then the saving act by the lifeguard is diminished. In the same way, if humans are capable of assisting in their own salvation even by “making a few good strokes” the magnitude of God’s saving act is decreased and sola gratia is no longer true. Again, Barth balks at any possibility of humanity to know God and his desires for us apart from divine revelation; then we should have been able to save ourselves, like the drowning swimmer.

In an attempt to strengthen his argument, Barth appeals to some key Pauline scriptures about his life in Christ and his life in the flesh. He contends that Paul’s description in I Corinthians 2 and Galatians 2 speaks of a transformation that only comes through a faith in Christ, and not from any worldly or fleshly discernment. Paul’s flesh has been “crucified with Christ.” This means, for Barth, that there is nothing good that existed in his flesh prior to his faith in Christ. Brunner has missed the mark in exegeting Paul, according to Barth, and is in need of “an angel from heaven who would call to him through a silver trumpet of enormous dimensions.”[7]

I resonate with Brunner’s belief that, “The experiential = knowledge of God is not made superfluous by faith in the Word of God, but on the contrary remains an important complement of the knowledge of God derived from Scripture.”[8] I cannot agree with Brunner in his assertion that one is “in relation with the divine truth” when they are doing anything scientific or artistic. On the other hand, I do not agree with Barth in his outright rejection of natural theology and natural revelation. I think he is wrong when he says, “For ‘natural theology’ does not exist as an entity capable of becoming a separate subject within what I consider to be real theology – not even for the sake of being rejected.”[9] I do agree that the Church is at risk when they allow natural theology to move too far outside of the bounds of the revelation in Christ and Scripture. I think that Barth allowed his emotions to drive much of his argument and in the end affect the overall tone of hit essay.

My hope is that this brief synopsis of Natural Theology will either begin stirring or continue to stir your heart and mind about the significance and controversy that is undeniably a part of natural theology. This is by no means an exhaustive review of Brunner and Barth’s arguments; however it does highlight some of the key areas that separate the one time friends. The debate over natural theology rages on today and has been directly impacted by both these men, both positively and negatively. The impact of Karl Barth on natural theology is still being felt today and the dialogue surrounding the topic is far from over.

---

[1] Brunner, Emil Natural Theology pg. 23

[2] Brunner pg. 24

[3] Brunner pg. 37

[4] Brunner pg. 46

[5] Brunner pg. 58

[6] Brunner pg. 74

[7] Brunner pg. 93

[8] Brunner pg. 38

[9] Brunner pg. 75