The Wisdom Of This World
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, four volumes, edited by Paul Edwards (Macmillan, 1973, 4,206 pp., $99.50), is reviewed by David E. Kucharsky, managing editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
No reference work can ever claim to offer all the answers, but here is one that at least poses most of the questions. Except for Encyclopedia Britannica, no other work in English can compare, in the scope and intensity with which the great human ideas are presented, with the Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
It would be hard to overrate the value of EP for thoughtful Christians. Those who acquire a set will find themselves consulting it regularly. Philosophy as a discipline is closely related to theology, and there is hardly a page among the 4,200 in EP without some religious relevance. Everyone who researches sermons or Sunday-school lessons should have access to it if he wishes to grapple effectively with the wisdom of this world.
The publishers originally issued EP in eight volumes, priced at $299.50. Now, eight years later, they have rebound it into four volumes with no abridgement and are offering it for two-thirds less. (In fact, by joining the Book-of-the-Month Club one can obtain the set for the cost of a couple of regular books.)
Editor-in-Chief Paul Edwards claims in the introduction that “there is no philosophical concept or theory of any importance that is not identified and discussed.” In most cases, he says, articles were assigned to authors (there are 500) “who were to some considerable extent sympathetic to the theory or the figure they were to discuss.” However, Edwards and his 153-member editorial board chose to have long and integrated articles rather than a greater multitude of shorter entries. As a result, many theories and figures end up being handled in broader contexts by contributors who are ideologically hostile to them. For example, “propositional revelation” appears in the same article as “nonpropositional revelation.” The contradictory views are presented by the same author, John Hick, once a Princeton Seminary professor. Hick flatly asserts that the propositional conception of revelation “was largely abandoned by the first Reformers in the sixteenth century, particularly Martin Luther.”
One also wonders how, under the guidelines stated by the editor, a Catholic medievalist was selected to write the article on the American Puritan Jonathan Edwards. Fortunately, the writer, Armand A. Maurer, is accurate, lucid, and interesting and considers his subject “the most gifted and articulate theologian-philosopher in the New England colonies and perhaps in American history.”
The editor comments that “reference works have a reputation, not altogether undeserved, for being deadly dull.” To avoid this in EP he says, controversy was welcomed and “high-flown phraseology” discouraged. Also, “our contributors were not required to be serious and solemn at all costs, and some of our articles are certain to offend those who believe that philosophy and laughter are incompatible.” There are indeed occasional attempts at humor in EP, though not in its three-page article on the subject.
Edwards states that writers were free to show their own bias as long as they did not deliberately distort opponents’ views. Thinking people will recognize this as a commendable approach: it is productive of a lot less misunderstanding if one concedes that one operates within a certain perspective and then tries to be fair. The difficulties begin when readers are led to expect absolute objectivity, which is in fact impossible.
The bias of EP is admittedly toward the empirical and analytic tradition of Anglo-Saxon philosophy, which is numerically overpowering in academia today. Vienna-born Edwards readily admits that the encyclopedia would have been vastly different had a Hegelian or phenomenologist been the editor. If the reader is not sympathetic to a concentration on language, semantics, and nomenclature, he may occasionally despair. (He may also be disappointed, however, to find among all the discussion of human expression virtually nothing on the discipline of rhetoric as such, long associated with philosophy and undergoing in recent years something of a revival. The material was originally written about a decade ago—before this revival was very apparent, and also before Vatican II released a flood of existential and phenomenological speculation among Roman Catholic philosophers.)
Edwards shows his own bias in his ten-page essay on “Meaning and Value of Life.” The article does not, as one might expect, survey the various theories of worth but focuses upon whether pessimistic conclusions are justified if belief in God and immortality is rejected. The implied presupposition is that religious claims are outside what is now considered the domain of philosophy, and that the subject must be handled within contemporary confines, namely, those of empirical verifiability. Needless to say, the tenets of biblical Christianity are not regarded as sufficiently linked to sense data to qualify for rational philosophical discourse.
In most of the rest of EP, Christian premises are not such outcasts. The work is replete with ideas set forth by Christians. Among article writers are a number of neo-Thomists and neo-Protestants, and several Calvin College graduates who are evangelicals. But contemporary evangelicals will not be found as subject matter, except for C. S. Lewis, who in the article on “Concepts of God” is credited with providing “the best modern defense of the miraculous element in Christianity.”
True, one might be hard pressed to name many twentieth-century evangelicals whose creativity would warrant notice in EP. There is no evangelical apologetic in philosophy that has any appreciable respect among worldly thinkers. But one can hope that if there is a second edition it will at least make significant references to such figures as Machen, Dooyeweerd, Clark, and Van Til. Also, a promising group of younger evangelicals are winning respect among their philosophical peers and will be deserving of attention.
Hick, whose limitations in discussing revelation were noted earlier, does much better in his treatment of faith. He manages to write a four-page article without quoting the definition in Hebrews 11:1, but otherwise provides a succinct survey of how faith has been described by great intellects down through the ages. Hick also wrote key articles on Christianity (in which the fall is referred to as a myth) and on the ontological argument for the existence of God.
There is an eight-page article on common-consent arguments for the existence of God, and nearly two pages are given to the Golden Rule. Among the many theologians covered in separate articles are Barth, Brunner, Bonhoeffer, and Bultmann. T. S. Eliot also gets an article, as do such subjects as “If,” “Nothing,” “Why,” “Can,” “Common Sense,” and “My Death.”
The text, set in film type, is quite readable even though each two-column page packs in about 1,200 words. One might hope that reference works of this sort would include pronunciations of names, but EP does not. It does have bibliographies with each of its 1,450 articles. A 157-page index has some 38.000 entries.
The obvious use of this tool for non-philosophical types is to get a quick rundown on some concept, thinker, or intellectual phenomenon. There is a vast amount of description of how Christians have wrestled with great ideas, as well as a compilation of the most profound resistance against God. Christians should not have to be persuaded to be as aware as possible of these things, but, regrettably, many avoid philosophy, feeling that it is too abstract to bother with. The truth is that philosophers perhaps more than politicians determine the patterns of how people live. One cannot get away from philosophies. One can only choose between them.
The Need For Challenge
The Urban Mission, edited by Craig Ellison (Eerdmans, 230 pp., $3.95 pb), is reviewed by Cheryl Forbes, editorial associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
Throughout the twenty-two chapters plus the introduction we are told that people, evangelicals particularly, hate and mistrust the city. The contributors try to convince readers that the city ought to be important to them. I am not sure that they succeed.
I read the book from a city perspective. I work in the city and have lived and worked in both the South End of Boston and the ghetto of Washington, D.C. I love the city for itself, and I believe that urban missions are as vital as foreign missions. I know from first-hand experience what poverty in the city is like. But those who don’t will probably think, even after reading the book (if they will read it, that is), that “those people” deserve little help.
John F. Alexander’s essay, “Making People Aware,” deals with this problem, and is in some ways one of the best in the book. (All the chapters but one are original; the exception, by Joseph Daniels, appeared as two articles in CHRISTIANITY TODAY.) Alexander points out that those trying to activate evangelicals have used rational methods of communicating the problems. Of course, the best way to convince people is to show them. But if we can’t get them into the city, we should get the city into them. Alexander explains how:
Consider how evangelicals have tried to communicate about poverty, racism, and the city. On such topics we have written hundreds of learned treatises, but no novels, very little poetry, few short stories, even fewer allegories, little humor, practically no songs, and only a few photo essays or movies. Do we really believe that two-hundred-page essays are the way to produce change? If we want to make people sensitive to human suffering, let us show human suffering.
Most literary historians know that through his fiction Charles Dickens did much to alleviate the suffering of the poor in nineteenth-century England. And in this century many secular poets have written of war and poverty. But evangelicals have failed to understand that art, while entertaining, can also help us see and feel the problem. Regrettably, the publishers of this volume did not heed Alexander’s perceptive point, and we have another two-hundred-page collection of essays.
The essays are good, well written (for the most part), and instructive. Ronald Sider tells us about rural Messiah College’s Satellite Campus in Philadelphia. Roger Dewey explains the development of the Evangelical Committee for Urban Ministries in Boston, and Eunice and Donald Schatz and Lucille Sider Dayton tell us of Chicago’s Urban Life Center. But because the chapters lack imagination, they do not convey the conviction of their authors. The emotional aspect is missing, except in the chapter by Graham Barnes, “Black-White Understanding: Communication and Participation,” which effectively uses a case-study narrative technique.
As a resource or text book The Urban Mission succeeds admirably. But as—to use the editor’s words—a “challenge to the general evangelical community” to get involved in the city, it is, I fear, less convincing.
Topical Approach
Biblical Archaeology, edited by Shalom M. Paul and William G. Dever (Quadrangle, 1974, 290 pp., $12.50), is reviewed by Richard Neissen, Ph.D. candidate, Aquinas Institute of Theology, Dubuque, Iowa.
This volume is part of the New York Times Library of Jewish Knowledge series and covers Old Testament archaeology up to the Persian period. Both editors reside in Israel, and they have been able to use unpublished material and original works in Hebrew that would normally be inaccessible to Western readers.
One interesting feature of the volume is the authors’ topical approach to the subject. Instead of leading the reader on a tedious site-by-site tour of the Holy Land or on a century-by-century trudge through the dim ages of Israel’s past, they present him with a topical arrangement of the subject matter. Overall, the arrangement makes for both interesting and reference usefulness.
Part one, a full half of the book, deals with architectural matters pertaining to the construction and layout of cities as a whole and of the various buildings contained therein. Photographs of sites are supplemented by models and drawings. Also included are chapters on temples and various cultic structures, fortifications, tombs, and water works.
Part two treats the various aspects of economic life, including agricultural techniques, trade and commerce, taxation, and, in a chapter each, monetary systems and the system of weights and measures.
The third part deals with the hardware of everyday life. One chapter covers the raw materials used, from iron and glass to leather and textiles. The other is on tools and utensils, clothing, weaponry, musical instruments, and religious artifacts.
Many archaeologists subject their readers to a seemingly endless parade of pictures of vases, rock-carvings, and what have you. This one, however, seems a little under-illustrated in places. For example, the chapter on money shows none of the coinage, and the last ninety pages, on technology and crafts, contain twelve illustrations.
The text is written at a popular level, and there are no footnotes; this complicates going to the primary sources for reference and further study, though a section of “Suggestions for Further Reading” lists the more important contributions to the field. The book’s usefulness as a reference tool would be enhanced by an index of Scripture references, but this lack is partially compensated for by an eight-page, double-column index of the subject matter. This volume would be just the thing for church libraries and is recommended supplementary reading on the life and times of the Old Testament world.
What Do We Know About Jesus?
Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, by F. F. Bruce (Eerdmans, 1974, 216 pp., $3.45 pb), is reviewed by Stanley K. Riegel, graduate student, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Ontario.
The Bible student is indebted to F. F. Bruce for many books that offer a thoroughly researched but non-technical introduction to various areas of biblical scholarship. This recent one surveys and evaluates the information about Jesus and Christian origins provided by non-biblical sources. Bruce is careful to point out, though, that while the secondary sources are of great interest, the primary source for information on this subject is the New Testament.
The evidence he considers in this book comes from many sources: pagan writers, Josephus, rabbinical tradition, Qumran, apocryphal gospels, Gnostic writings, Islam and the Qur’an, and archaeology.
In synopsis form these are some of Bruce’s conclusions. The pagan writers give what he calls reports of their investigations into police records concerning the origins of Christianity after its rise and growth began to attract attention. The writings of Josephus and the rabbis contain reports of Jesus that, though they may not be accepted as wholly authentic, do witness to the writers’ knowledge of Jesus and his followers. Of the sources that purport to record what Jesus said and did, Bruce acknowledges that authentic traditions may be recorded but that the majority of these materials are either imaginative expansions of the Gospels or collections of sayings interpreted by those with heretical theological viewpoints. Islam and the Qur’an are seen not as independent sources but simply as further attestation that Christianity had made an important impact. Archaeology has contributed to a better understanding of the New Testament through what has been learned from papyrus documents, coins, and stone inscriptions.
Bruce concludes by stating that his purpose has been not to prove something but to provide readers with an account of the references to Jesus and Christian origins in all types of documents outside the New Testament. The legends found there in no way detract from the historical validity of the New Testament but witness to the growing impact that Jesus and the Church were having.
The value of this book is that it puts a readable account of all this material together under one cover, thereby saving the reader from consulting many other books to find the same information.
The service to the reader is further increased because it does not simply provide a source but also gives a reliable evaluation of the worth of every piece of non-canonical material included. It is a welcome addition for the library of laymen and also for students, who will find it a good introduction to the varied sources it treats.
Christian And/Or Civil Religion
American Civil Religion, edited by Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (Harper & Row, 1974, 278 pp., $3.95 pb), is reviewed by Dean M. Kelley, director for civil and religious liberties, National Council of Churches, New York City.
It is either too hard or too easy to write about “the American civil religion” because so few agree on what it is. Like the blind men and the elephant, the authors of these essays come up with at least as many definitions as there are authors. The editors sort out five categories of definitions used in the book: (1) folk religion, (2) the transcendent universal religion of the nation, (3) religious nationalism, (4) the democratic faith, and (5) Protestant civic piety.
Martin Marty, in his essay “Two Kinds of Civil Religion,” suggests that there are as many civil religions as as there are citizens. And John F. Wilson, with gentle and scholarly courtliness, follows this logic to its inevitable conclusion: while there are many ceremonia or quasi-theological elements in American life, they do not constitute an ongoing, independent identifiable “thing” out there worthy of being called religion like other religions.
The book begins and ends with articles by Robert N. Bellah, who gave the term its current usage in his classic article “Civil Religion in America,” reprinted from the Winter, 1967, Daedalus, as the prologue of this book. In his epilogue of six years later, Bellah insists that, despite the disputations of the intervening years and pages, there is too such a thing (or at least the concept of such a thing) because he set it forth in 1967, and that its “reality” consists in its usefulness in talking about things that “indubitably are out there.” When another concept comes along that is more useful in talking about those things, then the “civil religion” will cease to exist.
The same could be said for “phlogiston” or the “ether”: they were “useful” concepts for talking about “things out there.” The only trouble was, they were erroneous concepts that led many generations of observers astray. Likewise, “civil religion” is a concept (or rather a disorderly bundle of concepts) that creates more confusions and illusions than it resolves. The same “things out there” could be described more adequately—and more accurately—by less pretentious terms, such as “civic ceremonials,” “shared political presuppositions,” “messianic nationalism,” and “vestiges of Protestant proprietary culture-pieties.”
Some of the papers in this book were presented at a conference on civil religion at Drew University organized by the editors; others are reprinted classics, such as Sidney E. Mead’s “The Nation With the Soul of a Church” (1967) and W. Lloyd Warner’s “An American Sacred Ceremony” (1953!). Will Herberg’s article is a kind of a brief reprise of his insightful book Protestant, Catholic, Jew (1960).
I have read this book three times, the first time in galleys, and have come to appreciate several of the essays—even Bellah’s—more each time. David Little analyzes Thomas Jefferson’s failure to recognize, let alone resolve, the tensions among moral beliefs, religious beliefs, and civic responsibility, thus encouraging the American propensity to confuse moral commitments and religious convictions with civic allegiance. Leo Marx points out the vernacular use of obscenity to deflate the propensities of “civil religion,” which he defines as “the effort to invest the highest political authority with religious legitimacy.”
Charles H. Long offers the important insight that the American civil religion is devoted mainly to exalting and sanctifying the deeds of male European conquerors in this land, thus not only rendering invisible the native American, black, and Oriental people here but helping the dominant group to forget what it did, and is doing, to them. This omission cannot be rectified merely by adding on the histories of these non-Europeans to the American hagiography, he says; it calls for a far more radical remedy (hold your breath now!): a new episteme! With this (undefined) prescription, the force and specificity of the article degenerate into two pages of obscure incantations about “hermeneutics,” “heuristics,” and “historiographies”—a disappointing anticlimax.
My favorite essay, perhaps because most congenial to my own views, is Herbert Richardson’s theological castigation of civil religion. He rejects Bellah’s and Mead’s notion that it can be an exalting influence and becomes demonic only when “misused.” Such misuse is inevitable because of the very nature of civil religion. The linkage of the nation to God runs both ways: politics takes on ultimacy, and justification is afforded for whatever course politics takes. “In attempting to be pious, we can also become proud.”
It is not that we can exorcise civil religion, he contends, for it is inevitable in any society, but “the national form of civil religion in America is not inevitable—and it is certainly wrong.” Every cultural grouping has its mythologies and rituals and ideals, and a state is usually composed of several such groupings, which serve as a check upon one another and the state. It is only when the state identifies itself with one such entity and suppresses the others that “civil religion” becomes monopolistic and demonic. We must reinstate multiple peoplehoods, multiple loyalties.
It is a belief peculiar to our Puritan heritage, Richardson adds, that “the political order is where the drama of human salvation is being worked out.” On this point, Calvin and Jefferson, Nixon and McGovern agree. To suggest to Americans “that Christianity is radically opposed to civil religion is to be met with incredulity.” He argues that the political models of salvation of the Old Testament, Calvin and the Puritans be replaced by noncivic categories, such as the New Testament’s insistence that ultimate reality is not like a state but like an ecclesia; that “God is known not in glory but in suffering.”
To show the sovereignty of the nation-state to be limited, there must be a countervailing entity able to contend with it for the right to determine the nature and mode of human fulfillment, and that competitor is the Church. It knows that it is not the creature of the state nor dependent upon it for authority, and that it, not the state, is the repository of God’s Kingdom. Not just religious creeds or attitudes are the alternative to a demonic civil religion, but ecclesiastical Christianity, an institution of broader compass and vastly longer provenance than any nationstate, having its own “turf,” as it were, independent of the state, claiming the (voluntary) allegiance of people in regard to ultimate things not by force or violence but by suffering and the Word.
This essay alone is worth the price of the book, and the other excellent articles are bonuses.
