Zelma Henderson Dies

The last plaintiff in 'Brown v. Board of Education case dies. Zelma Henderson, a courageous woman, whose insistent conviction pushed the Supreme court to outlaw segregation in public schools, died Tuesday after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She was 88 years old. She was forced to send her children to a school that was 10 blocks away from their home than a whites-only school. When asked, by the Associate Press in 2004, she said:

I wanted my children to know all races like I did. It means a lot to a persons' outlook on life. No inferiority complex at all--that's what I wanted for my children as far as race was concerned

May her soul rest in peace!

Open Theism: God and the Future (Part V)

What did the Ancients Say about God’s foreknowledge?

In this post, I hope to share with you what the ancient luminaries thought about God's foreknowledge from an ecclesiological history. (It is going to be a bit long)

God’s Foreknowledge in History

In the previous post, I mentioned that Open theist’s conception of God’s foreknowledge is not historically a new theory. Traditionally, the Socinians shared a similar view. On the other hand, historically, the church luminaries upheld an exhaustive view of God’s foreknowledge. God’s omniscience was never thought of something impartial or imperfect. Virtually all Christendom affirms God’s foreknowledge of human free choices. The church maintains that “God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.” In other words, from all eternity past God knows and is aware of every contingency. According to John Calvin, “God foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place,” on the other hand, Jacob Arminius wrote, “God has known from eternity which persons should believe… and which should persevere through subsequent grace.” (John Piper provides substantial details in “Is the Glory of God at Stake in God's Foreknowledge of Human Choices”?). In his provocative work, The Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards observes, “…And therefore, unless God does exactly and perfectly foresee the future acts of men’s wills, all the predictions which he ever uttered concerning David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyprus, Alexander; concerning the four monarchies, and the revolutions, victories, prosperities, and calamities, of any of the kingdoms, nations, or communities of the world, have all been without knowledge.” Furthermore, Edwards notes three things about God’s knowledge and human free choices that sustain his previous claim. “If God does not foreknow, he cannot foretell such events; that is, he cannot peremptorily and certainly foretell them. If God has no more than an uncertain guess concerning events of this kind, then he can declare no more than an uncertain guess. Positively foretell, is to profess to foreknow, or declare positive foreknowledge. Secondly, if God does not certainly foreknow the future volitions of moral agents, and then neither can he certainly foreknow those events which are consequent and dependent on these volitions. The existence of the one depending on the existence of the other, the knowledge of the existence of the one depends on the knowledge of the existence of the other; and the one cannot be more certain than the other. Lastly, if God [doesn’t] foreknow the volition of moral agents, then he did not foreknow the fall of man, or of angels, and so could not foreknow the great things which were consequent on these pertaining to the great work of redemption; all things which were done four thousand years before Christ came, toe prepare the way for it; and the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ…etc”

If God cannot know the future choices of moral agents, how, then, does he maintain control over a relatively free world? For God to be able to control future choices, at least, he has to have a foreknowledge of what these things will be or could be; and through his own intervention in creaturely state of affairs whenever it is deemed necessary to accomplish his purposes God could actively maintain control over things to be and the choices of free agents. In other words, God must have known from all eternity every free-will act, every planned free-will act, since he knows human hearts, plans, and intentions. “These things are not uncertainties for God; he does not have to wait for them to occur before he can know them with certainty” (See, Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God. 410). God must have knowledge, otherwise, he could be wise; wisdom is the flower of knowledge, and knowledge is the root of wisdom, said Charnock (ibid).

The Early Church Fathers (2nd century)

What did the early church fathers think about God’s foreknowledge? Did they claim God’s knowledge was comprehensive? We begin with Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr (100–165)

Justin Martyr was concerned about how biblical prophecies could be perfectly fulfilled as they were foretold by God. According to Justin, the things God absolutely knows will certainly transpire; God could so predict a number of things including human actions and intentions, future events, etc as if they had already happened. So in view of God’s knowledge concerning predictions of prophecies, he writes, “So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they can about a fatal necessity; but foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being his decree and the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, he [God] foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that he will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that he cares and provides for men (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 44).

Ireneus (b. 2nd century; d. c 200)

Irenaeus links [God’s] foreknowledge with (his ability to predict) prophecy . He harks back to God’s act of creation so to describe his foreknowledge, “ For after his great kindness he graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by his prescience he knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [his] love and [his] power, he shall overcome the subtance of created nature” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.29.1)

Origen (185–254)

In his argument with Celsus, Origen contends that God foreknows all things and his knowledge is full. “For God, comprehending all things by means of His Foreknowledge, and foreseeing what consequences would result from both of theses, wished to make these known to mankind by his prophets” ( Origen, De Principiis, 3.1)

Post Patristic Era -

Later theologians would confirm what many church fathers formerly taught about God’s omniscience. Similarly, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, and others maintained harmoniously that God fully foreknows the future and future choices made by free creatures. They all affirmed that God’s knowledge is “perfect” and “vast;” the future his creatures create does not catch God off guard. God is not caught off-guard since he has foresight, anticipating what moral agents will do.

Saint Augustine (354-430)

In various theological spectrums, Augustine is considered the most influential theological thinker. For Augustine, Go infallibly foreknows all that shall come to pass wonderfully. He expresses this conviction clearly in these words, “Surely, if there be a mind, so greatly abounding in knowledge and foreknowledge, to which all things past and future are so known as one psalm is well known to me, that mind is exceedingly wonderful, and very astounding; because what is so past, and whatever is to come after ages, is no more concealed from him than was it hidden from me when singing that psalm, what and how much of it had been sung from the beginning, what and how much remained unto the end. But far be it that Thou, the Creator of the universe, the Creator of souls and bodies,--far be it that Thou shouldest know all things future and past. Far, far wonderfully, and far mysteriously, Thou knowest them” (Augustine, Confessions, 11.31)

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Aquinas is well known for his skilled and systematic mind ; building upon Aristotle’s thought he developed his own philosophical theology. Aquinas maintained a God who is in total control of the future, one who has a comprehensive knowledge of all of history past, present and future.. According to him, “Everything that happens is brought about by God as the first or primary cause, but God acts concurrently with libertarainly free agents so that the actions of moral creatures are the free choice of the creatures themselves. God’s agency in every event in history determines the outcome, but he usually works through secondary, creaturely causes, and he works in such a way that the events are genuinely contingent or dependent upon the actions of the creatures. God is timeless, and so his own action never precedes the creature’s action. For this reaon God has a comprehensive foreknowledge of all of history past, present, and still future, but he knows it all in his eternal “now” so that he does not technically have “foreknowledge.”

John Calvin (1509 – 1564)

Calvin links God’s knowledge with his foresight (or prescience) and the things which he predestined/foreordained ( the doctrine of predestination/ foreordaination). According to Calvin, God’s omniscience includes everything in thistory of the created world, past, present, and future. God’s knowledge of the future is not simply foresight, it is a knowledge of his own will, a knowledge of what he has determined the future should be. Further, Calvinists teach that the sovereign God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and therefore he foreknows whatsoever comes to pas. Calvin also writes, “We, indeed, ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say that it is absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former. When we attributes prescience to God, we mean that all things always were, and ever continue, under his eye; that to his knowledge there is no past or future, but all things are present, and indeed so present, that it is not merely the idea of them that is before him, but he truly sees and contemplates them as actually under his immediate inspection. This prescience extends to the whole circuit of the world, and to all creatures” ( John Calvin, Institute of the Christian Religion, 3.21.5)

Martin Luther (1483–1546)

Luther was just another Augustine theologically speaking. By consequence, he assumed and affirmed God’s foreknowledge, and that it was God’s intention to foreordain all things, so God knows perfectly what he has decided and predetermined from the beginning. His explication of God’s foreknowledge must be understood in his free will contention with Erasmus. For example, Luther notes, “It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his immutable, eternal and infallible will… For the will of God God is effective and cannot be impeded, since power belongs to God’s nature; and his wisdom is such that he cannot be deceived. Since, then his will is not impeded, what is done cannot but be done where, when, how, as far as, and by whom, he foresees and wills” ( Martin Luther, Martin Luther on the Bondage of the Will: A new translation of De servo arbitrio, 80-81).

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609)

While Arminius denies that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass but clearly affirms God’s foreknowledge of whatsoever comes to pass. He affirms, “Inclination in God is natural towards his own creature, whether the man believes or not. For that inclination does not depend on faith, and uncertainty cannot be attributed to the will of him who, in his infinite wisdom, has all things present to himself, and certainly foreknows all future events, even the most contingent.” ( Jacob Arminius, An Examination of the Treatise of Williams Perkins, 1.4)

Others-

The following people or models below do not affirm clearly God’s complete foreknowledge

Lelio Socinus (1525-62)

Socinus was an Italian theologian, along with his nephew Fausto Socinus, they denied the cardinal doctrines of Christendom including the full deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, and justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Both Protestants and Catholics regard them as heretical. Both Lelio and Fausto contend that God does not know “in such a way that whatsoever he knows will surely come to pass.” In other words, in regard to human free choices, God simply knows future possibilities, but not future certainties. Furthermore, according to Robert Strmple, the Socinians insited that “it was a contradiction of human freedom to believe in the sovereign foreordination of God. So they went all the way (logically) and denied not only that God has foreordained the free decisions of free agents but also that God foreknows what those decisions will be.”

The Molinist Model = ( Luis de Molina [1535-1600])

Luis de Molina was a Spanish Jesuit. He wrote a commentary on the first part of the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas. At any rate, the Molinist model is a theological system named after Molina. This view is often called by theologians as “the Middle-Knowledge.” Accordingly, God’s action in the world is God’s knowledge of what would happen in all possible situations. God knows the actual future that will come to be, and he also knows all possible future that could be if circumstances were different. Christian philosopher and theologian, William Lane Craig, is today’s most proponent of the Middle knowledge view. Notice this view does not, however, deny God’s foreknowledge. Molina explains, “… By which [middle knowledge], in virtue of the most profound and inscrutable comprehension of each free will, he [God] saw in his own essence what each such will would do with its innate freedom were it to be placed in this or that, or indeed, infinitely many orders of things—even though it would really be able, if it so willed, to do the opposite” (Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , 52.9)

The Process Model = (Alfred North Whitehead [1861–1947])

Whitehead is known as the Father of process theology. First, this view affirms that the universe is an on-going process phenomenon and is characterized by change carried out by the agents of free will. Second, God is a process being, so he learns as things unfold in the universe. Theologians and philosophers of this particular tradition contend that God has an abstract (or primordial) and a concrete (or consequent) pole or aspect, and he is therefore a being that is in process. His being is not fully actualized; it is becoming. In the abstract pole, God has a fixed character, whereas, in his concrete pole, he is very much to influence outside of himself. That is, by external forces. He takes these up into himself and responds to them , so that he is in a constant state of interacting with the created order.

Summary:

In conclusion, traditionally, as we have observed above, God’s omniscience or foreknowledge is clearly affirmed. It is argued that his knowledge is perfect and extends to all things, past, present, and future, including future events and decisions orchestrated by moral agents. Moreover, we have also seen that God possesses an infallible knowledge, infallible, yet independent upon free agents and what will occur in the future. Finally, it is also taught that God’s knowledge is immediate, without the precess of thought, logic, or inference. In this respect, traditionally and historically Open theism is in opposition to what is commonly held and affirmed (by the majority) about God's foreknowledge. In the words of Tozer, “To say that God is omniscient is to say that he possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn. But it is more to say: it is to say that God has never learned and cannot learn” (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 86)

* For a more substantial historical detail on this topic see Millard J. Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know it? The Current Controversy Over Divine Foreknowledge

Open Theism: God and the Future ( Part IV)

In this post we will simply refer you to some audio lectures on the subject matter (Openness Theology): James White Debate John Sanders on Open Theism, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, J. Ligon Duncan III on Divine Providence , and The Lord Changed His Mind

Piper on God-glorifying, Christ-exalting Preaching

Listen to John Piper as he talks about prayer, bible study, passionate preaching and the goal of preaching. Listen to , II, and III

IBR Articles Online

The Institute for Biblical Research has uploaded its back issues (1991-2007) online. Now you have free access to a number of articles at no cost. Click here to view. Thanks to the good folks at IBR for providing this wonderful service to us.

Open Theism: God and the Future ( Part III)

Open Theists clearly affirm divine omniscience; however, what is at stake is the nature of the future. In other words, "The nature of the reality that God perfectly knows" (Boyd). To be more specific, what is the content of the reality of the future that God knows? Another way to ask the same question, How much does God know of the future? What did He know and when did He know it?

Open theist also maintain that God’s knowledge is indeed perfect and boundless, but omniscience could not embrace what is by nature unknowable, chiefly, future choices made by free agents. Another way to express this conviction is that God cannot know something which is nothing, future actions are not yet in existence to know. It is only after free creatures make them God can know them. So God cannot know anything that is nothing, and that is yet to exist, namely, the future free agents create.

Let’s explain this in a different way, suppose we arrive at this conclusion: if God does not foreknow future choices made by free creatures, it is not because his knowledge of the future is incomplete or imperfect; it is rather there is nothing explicit for God to know. Hence, decisions yet to be made by free agents cannot be known by God, for they are prospect actions, belonging to the range of divine experience or understanding. Free future doings can be described as probable postulated realities lying behind all phenomena and epistemology, therefore are not cognizable by the divine mind (Sorry for being redundant).

Moreover, what is conditioned by the future is yet to be transpired, for this reason; God has to wait for future events to occur before he can know them with certainty. In other words, the future is a mystery, a process even to God which he experiences as a human being.

This is not a new thought at all—the Socinians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made the same argument. They said that, “God does not know, in such a way that whatsoever He knows will surely come to pass.” In other words, in regard to human free choices, God only knows future possibilities, but not future certainties. Process theologians make the same assessment. For example, Charles Hartshone contends that “God’s foreknowledge is not clearly defined in the Bible, but is largely “an invention of Western thought of the Dark or Middle Ages. He redefines divine omniscience and concludes that the concept does not incorporate knowledge of future contingents. According to Harshone, divine omniscience means “to know all that exists, with the proviso that possibilities be included as part of what exists.”

*John Piper has written an excellent article on this particular point: Is the Glory of God at Stake in God's Foreknowledge of Human Choices? I believe it is still available online to access (http://www.desiringgod.org/).

We’ll see you in the next post

Open Theism: God and the future (Part II)

I want to open up today’s post with a quote from A. W. Tozer. According to Tozer, "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." By this statement he implies that, "The gravest question before (us) the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentious fact about any man is not what he at given time may say or do, but what in his deep heart conceives God to be like" (“Why We Must Think Rightly About God" in The Knowledge of the Holy, 1-2). In other words, as Tozer reminds us, our conception about who God is does matter and plays a significant role in regard to our daily living and how we respond to God. We must think rightly about God as his revelation is embedded in the pages of Scripture. For God is the greatest being to think about.

Yesterday, we introduced the Openness theology by providing both a concise definition and its basic code of beliefs. Open Theist argue that their view is biblically rooted. They feel that their opponents have not interacted rigorously with the evidential texts to which Open theists have appealed. Furthermore, they have complained that the traditional view reads Scripture with a philosophical lens. In other words, Classical theists’ interpretation of the Bible is philosophically based and driven.

Furthermore, the argument advanced by Open theists has an epistemological overtone as it applies to God. Because Openness Theology seeks to an understanding of divine omniscience and how the concept could be properly appropriated and construed in light of Scriptural evidence, it is important for us to come with a definition. The word “omniscience” is a combination of two Latin words “omni” (all) and “scientia” (Knowledge). By consequence, omninicence means “knowledge of everything.” Traditionally, both philosophers and theologians comparably apply the term (“omniscience”) to a divine being, rarely to human beings. Hence, omniscience is an attribute of God. Hence, it is an essential quality of the divine. In the very sense of the word, God has all knowledge. God is all knowing. God knows everything. The question, then, we must ask: How wide is God’s knowledge? Is it comprehensive? Does God possess exhaustive, inclusive, in-dept omniscience? Does it include or encompass the future?

God, Free Agents, and the Future

Let’s observe three different propositions as they pertain to God’s knowledge of himself, the future, and Free agents:

A) First proposition (God knows the future= Classical View)

First, if we consent God’s knowledge is broad and inclusive, then, it logically follows God cannot hold any false beliefs (about the future). Then God’s beliefs must be true and his knowledge must be perfect (total, and far-reaching). In other words, God knows all true propositions flawlessly those encompassing events of the past, present, and future. God knows actively and equally his own actions and the ones performed by free agents. In other words, the future is known by God since he knows precisely what will unfold. In that case, nothing can/will take God by surprise!

Example: Before George W. Bush was even thinking about running as a presidential candidate for the United States of America God foreknew he will be our president, not only once but for two terms. He also foreknew about the war in Iraq and precisely had foresight of Sadam’s capture and ultimately his death.

B) Second proposition (God does not know the future= Open Theism)

First, suppose we say that God’s knowledge only involves what he knows about himself, his own (future) plans and intentions, but not that of any volitional agent. Second, suppose we also conclude that God only knows his own future, and not that of other people. Then it follows that God’s knowledge is limited to a certain degree in respect to his own doings solely. As a result, God cannot know what is in essence unknowable, chiefly future knowledge and actions of people. In other words, God knows precisely and exactly about what he plans to do, not what you and I will do. Therefore, God’s knowledge of the future is only theocentric not anthropocentric. In this case, we describe God’s omniscience as the things that he knows and foreknows about himself, not about us.

Example: God knows exactly that he will cause rain tomorrow starting at 11:00 A.M, but he does not if I will choose steak for dinner tomorrow.

C) Third proposition (God knows the future partially)

In this example, we propose that God only knows certain things about the future and does not know some other things comprehensively, and the outcome of everything. In other words, there are a wide range of things that will transpire in the time to come, these include human future plans and decisions that God does not and cannot know about. On the other hand, there are a wide range of future events that God knows perfectly. He can only know some partially. God can predict certain things on the basis only of what he foreknows and foresees. It is noteworthy to mention as well those things that God does not know precisely do not necessarily mean he is ignorant of them. Somewhat, somehow, he’s very conscious that they may or may not occur. In the words of Pinnock, God also faces a range of possibilities about the future, and not only certainties. “God too moves into a future not wholly know because not yet fixed.”

Example: God knows with a range of possibilities it may or may not rain in Texas or Florida on Wednesday. He is not certain whether I will have a steak or some seafood for dinner tomorrow with my friend Tommy. Because I may not choose steak or seafood but only would choose to have a hamburger.

The problem is that sometimes Open Theists’ tendencies are ambigious, therefore fall under and belong to the contents of categories B and C above. There’s a sense Open theists deny God’s (complete) knowledge of the future, on the other hand, they maintain that God knows the future partially. For example, Boyd denies God of any knowledge or foresight of future events when he writes, “In the Christian view God knows all of reality—everything there is to know, But to assume he knows ahead of time how every person is going to freely act assumes that each person’s activity is already there to know—even before he freely does it! But it’s not. If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there simply isn’t anything to know until we make it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decision” ( Gregory A. & Edward K. Boyd, Letters From A Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions About Christianity, 30). In other instance, he acknowledges that God knows the future partly because the future is in the realm of possibilities and not certainties. “… The future is to some degree settled and known by God as such and to some degree open and known by God as such. To some extent, God knows the future as definitely this way and definitely not the way. To some extent, however, he knows it as possibly this way and possibly not that way” ( Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction To the Open View of God, 15)

I confess that I am not an open theist. However, in my observation I’ve noted that many critics of the Openness theology have not looked closely into their argument and the substantial evidence they’ve presented. Rather, large nets of presumptuous thoughts and ideas have been widely projected and cast against the movement. Let me say forthrightly, Open Theism theology is just another model among many other models of understanding God’s omniscience, and his interaction with the world. On the other hand, many people feel that theologians of the Open theist model have redefined the supposedly classical view of God’s omniscience.

Open Theism: An Introduction ( Part I)

In the next few days, I will do a series of posts on the Openness of God Theology. We begin with a basic definition:

Open theism is a theological and philosophical approach to the doctrine of God. Open theists hold that the future consists partly of settled realities and partly unsettled realities. God is omniscient, knowing all that can be known, but this does not include the future acts of free creatures. Consequently, the future is genuinely open, even for God. In other words, God knows all that shall be and all that may be, but his foreknowledge of the future (acts performed by volitional agents ) is not exhaustive and comprehensive.

Openness theology takes our relationship with God seriously. Hence , its advocates emphasize an anthropological approach to God. Proponents of this view stress a "performative relationship" with the personal God . In other words, the manner which human beings respond, perform or act toward God is an important feature.

In an important work entitled, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understand of God, a collaborative effort of several open theists (i.e. John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, Willam Hasker, and David Basinger), Pinnock's dictum clearly describes the movement:

Our understanding of God of the Scriptures lead us to depict God, the sovereign Creator, as voluntarily bringing into existence a world with significantly personal agents in its, agents who can respond positively to God or reject his plan for them. In line with the decision to make this kind of world, God rules in such a way as to uphold the created structures and, because he gives liberty to his creatures, is happy to accept the future as open, not closed, and a relationship with the world that is dynamic, not static. We believe that the Bible presents an open view of God as living and active, involved in history, relating to us and changing in relation to us. We see the universe as a context in which there are real choices, alternatives and surprises. God's openness means that God is open to the challenging realities of history, that God cares about us and lets what we do impact him. Our lives make a difference to God--they are truly significant. God is delighted when we trust Him and saddened when rebel against him. God made us significant creatures and treats us as such. We are significant to God and the Apple of his eyes ( Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994], 84)

Below I will outline some basic tenets of open theism and a few corresponding texts.

Basic Tenets of Open Theism-
1. Love is God's greatest attribute ( 2 Kings 20:1-7; Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 4:2)
2. Human beings are volitional agents. Their will is truly free in the libertarian sense
3. God knows the future partly, not exhaustively (Num. 14:11; Hos. 8:5; Ex. 3:18-4:9-
13:17
4. God is a risk taker (Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam 15:10, 35; Ezek. 22:29-31
5. God learns new ideas (Gen. 6:5-6; Ex. 16:4; Chro. 32:31)
6. God innovates his plans based on human response (Jer. 38:17-18, 20-21, 23).
7. God changes his mind (Ex. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Jer. 18:7-11)
8. God normally knows what he intends to do, not what others will do (Num. 14:11;
Hos. 8:5; Ezek. 12:1-3)
9. God makes mistakes ( Is. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20

See you next time for Part II.

Book Review: Stony the Road We Trod ( Part I)

Thanks to the good folks at Fortress Press for sending me a review copy.


Introduction and Background Information

Stony the Road: African American Biblical Interpretation is a collection of eleven seminal essays penned by African American Biblical Scholars edited by Cain Hope Felder. The essays consider biblical authority, African American experience, the issue of race in the Bible, and biblical hermeneutics. These particular essays appropriate the biblical text in the context of the experience of the African American community. It is justifiable to say that this particular work is a response to the dominant Eurocentric hermeneutical culture in the areas of biblical exegesis and interpretation as often portrayed as the key signature for everyone’s scholarship. By consequence, Stony the Road We trod seeks to create an “integrating theological culture,” and provides “a fresh challenge to all Bible interpreters—a challenge that intends to be thoroughly constructive as a preliminary bridge to celebrate not “his-story” alone, but all of “our-stories” as the people of God” (ix). Stony the Road We trod is the result of five-year process of collaborated work of various African American Biblical scholars in the United States.

Summary of Stony the Road

The book opens with introductory comments by Cain Hope Felder and is divided in four equal parts. Each part seeks to substantiate collaboratively the overall thesis of the book and addresses pertinent issues advancing the shared authorial consensus. Part I: The Relevance of Biblical Scholarship and the authority identifies issues in African American Biblical scholarship and raises relevant questions of the significance of African American Hermeneutics, considering the subjects of biblical authority and scholarship appropriately “contextualized” to the African American reader. Three essays: Interpreting Biblical Scholarship for the Black Church Tradition written by Thomas Hoyt, Jr., The Hermeneutical Dilemma of the African American Student by William H. Myers, and Reading Her way through Struggle: African American Women and the Bible by Renita J. Weems belong to the first division of the book. Part II: African American Sources for enhancing Biblical Interpretation, comprises two essays: The Bible and African Americans: An Outline of an Interpretative History by Vincent L. Wimbush and “An Ante-bellum Sermon”: A Resource for an African American Hermeneutic by David T. Shannon. This particular section outlines available tools and resources: biblical and extra -biblical, that African American Biblical scholars have used in their biblical interpretive journey. The issues of race and black presence in the bible characterize austerely Part III (Race and Ancient Black Africa in the Bible). Cain Hope Felder writes on Race, Racism, and the Biblical Narratives, Charles B. Copher on the Black Presence in the Old Testament, and Randal C. Bailey on Beyond Identification: The Use of Africans in Old Testament Poetry and Narratives. Finally, Part IV: Reinterpreting Biblical Texts seeks an interpretive alternative and context in which innovative and creative exegesis are employed to discuss vital issues in selected books and passages in the Bible that have special interest to African American interpreters. Imaginative essays penned by John W. Waters (Who Was Hagar?), Clarice J. Martin (The Haustafeln [Household Codes] in African American Biblical Interpretation: “Free Slaves” and “Subordinate Women”), and Lloyd A. Lewis (An African American Appraisal of the Philemon-Paul-Onesimus Triangle).

In the introductory notes, Felder expresses his deep and fervid sentiment about African American men and women who have been faithful servants of the church and the academia but whose work are jettisoned and not often recognized in the guild of biblical scholarship. These luminaries, however, have been extraordinary interpreters of the sacred Text, providing profound and sound biblical exegesis, and making insightful scholarly contribution in the field of biblical studies. Felder also acknowledges the fact that minority of blacks are engaged in the field of Biblical Studies and impresses the need to outnumber. On the other hand, he outlines three critical factors causing this phenomenon over several years. First, African Americans have not pursued the biblical field due to economic unsteadiness, a lack of financial support and political conditions. These “preventing factors” have increasingly retained their rank small in the field. Second, African Americans who are granted admissions in biblical studies programs must do so in predominantly white institutions, for there are no Bible studies terminal (Ph.D. /Th.D. degrees) degrees granted by dominant black institutions in the world or “where nonwhites constitute the majority of the faculty” (2). Third, the majority of African American with a Ph.D. or Th. D. in biblical studies often teaches in predominantly white seminaries, colleges, and universities due to various circumstances and political reasons.

In Interpreting Biblical Scholarship for the Black Church Tradition, Hoyt provides a helpful survey of different models (i.e. historical criticism, tradition-historical approach, Pauline model, proof-texting model, allegory, etc) that represent historic Biblical interpretation and reinterpretation over various eras. Drawing from historical-critical method, he maintains that the biblical writers were interpreters themselves both of God’s revealed word and their contemporary culture, building upon ancient traditions they received (17). Next, Hoyt tackles the issues of Biblical authority and Culture, and their relevance to the interpreter. He argues that, in the face of an Eurocentric prominence in Biblical Studies, whilst representing an Eurocentric cultural preferences in biblical exegesis and interpretation, these factors “do not provide the only perspective or even the best one for interpreting Scripture. African American, Latin American, and Feminist theologians have all stressed rightly that the text is not the only focus for biblical interpretation; both the text and the interpreters must be examined” (25). Nevertheless, as Hoyt satisfactorily maintains, in the black culture, “the story” is that which establishes the authority of the Bible, for in its story, blacks find the essence of their story in modern life” (ibid). So the role and function of “stories” have been both the aesthetic vehicle and driven force in interpreting Scripture in African American biblical hermeneutics. In other words, in the African American community, cultural values transcend religious affiliation. But the Bible, however, has always played a major role in the formation of Black identity and in their lives. Notwithstanding this conflicting paradox, Hoyt still upholds that, for black people, the Bible is the sacred “authoritative book.


In The Hermeneutical Dilemma of the African American Student, Myers discusses the role and function of the call narrative in the African American church. He maintains that the so-called “call narrative” in African American Biblical Interpretation “has always held and still holds a significantly authoritative canonical status when compared to the preaching ministry” (55). Myers always raises a lot of issues and difficulties surrounding the African American student. He discusses the dominant Eurocentric approach in biblical field including the world view and the exaltation of their culture over all others in the discipline represents a great dilemma for the African American biblical student. Myers provides various prescriptions to the Africam American student to appropriate Scripture and contextualize it according to their culture while asserting and affirming biblical authority. So Myers appeals to the “call and conversion narratives” that have been intimately linked with the African American community church.

In The Bible and African Americans: An Outline of an Interpretative History, Wimbush provides a succinct historical analysis of African American interaction with the Bible. He outlines five major readings (First Reading: Rejection, Suspicion, and Awe of Book Religion [Beginning of African Experience in the New World]; Second Reading: Transformation of “Book Religion” into Religion of Slave Experience [Beginning of Mass Conversions in the Eighteenth Century]; Third Reading: Establishment of Canon and Hermeneutical Principle [Beginning of Independent Church Movements in the Nineteenth Century]; Fourth Reading: Esoteric and Elitist Hermeneutical Principles and Texts [Early Twentieth Century to the Present]; and Fifth Reading: Fundamentalism [Late Twentieth Century]) in which the Bible was interpreted by African Americans . The Bible and African Americans has enabled us to consider African American readings of the Bible and allowed us to reflect upon various conditions that gave rise to such approaches. Wimbush has given us a window to look at the Bible through the lens of African American experience, a mix of vital facets of faith and life. A window that is colored with memories, values, ideas and historical reality. It is also a world that represents both the crisis of identity and struggle for identity for the people of African descent in the New World. In this reading, Winbush has endeavored to demonstrate that the Bible has always played a significant role in the formation of the black community, and continues to have an unending impact on the African American imagination. The author has effectively exhibited how interpretations of ordinary African Americans of the Bible have revolutionized their world, the struggle for freedom, equality and recognition.