Roger E. Olson. The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction. IVP Academic, 2013. See here to purchase the book.
Roger E. Olson has a Ph.D. from Rice University and teaches theology
at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University.
As the title indicates, this book is about modern theology. It goes
from the challenges that modernity posed to faith, as Newton conceived
of a cosmos that was like a machine, leading scientists to seek natural
causes and to exclude the possibility of supernatural intervention. It
goes through Kant and Hume, Hegel, realists, romanticists,
existentialists, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Troelsch, Catholic modernists
and conservatives, conservative Protestants such as Hodge and Warfield,
Isaak August Dorner and Horace Bushnell (Orthodox theologians), Barth,
Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Tillich, Process Theology, Moltmann and
Pannenberg, liberation theologians such as Cone and Gutierrez, Rahner,
Kung, von Balthasar, evangelical theologians such as Carl Henry and
Stanley Grenz, and theologians who respond positively to secularism,
such as Bonhoeffer and Harvey Cox. The final chapter is about postmodern
and postliberal theologians, including Hauerwas, William Placher, and
John Caputo. The book chronicles the variety of ways in which
theologians sought to respond to modernity and postmodernity: through an
emphasis on personal religious experience so as to insulate religion
from the acids of modern and postmodern challenges, or through an
emphasis on ethics or the ethical community that God is creating.
The book is a little over 700 pages. It explains the thoughts of
these theologians and the others whom it profiles in a lucid manner,
while also presenting other theologians’ critiques and offering
critiques of its own. Olson also provides biographical background on the
theologians, such that one gets to know them better as people.
Occasionally, Olson offers personal anecdotes about his interactions
with some of them. I remember when I was wrestling with a theological
book, and a professor recommended that I read the section of William
Placher’s History of Christian Theology about that theologian,
since Placher summarized theologians’ thought in a concise and lucid
manner. I would definitely say the same about Olson’s Journey of Modern Theology,
but I would add that Olson covers more territory and goes deeper. This
book’s breadth does not sacrifice its depth, as is the case with some
books, for Olson really focuses on the theologians, and his narrative
effectively situates them within the trends and developments of modern
theology.
Here are some reactions, thoughts, and questions that I have:
A. Newton, of course, presented the cosmos as machine-like, and
Occam’s razor led people to search for natural causes rather than
supernatural causes. Prior to this, Olson narrates, Christians believed
that God had a more hands-on approach to running the cosmos. I wonder,
though, why modernism necessarily precludes the possibility of miracles.
Sure, the cosmos runs a certain way, but why can’t God make
interruptions in that order, every now and then?
B. Kant was a significant influence on modern theology. Kant’s view
was that we can only know things as they appear, not as they truly are,
so his religious focus was more on ethics rather than metaphysics. Is
Kant’s view that we cannot know God as God truly is really that new,
though? Would not Aquinas would say the same thing: that God is above us
and condescends to our level to interact with us? We do not completely
know God in God’s essence, and God is described in human terms to make
God a little more comprehensible to us. Perhaps the answer to my
question is that Aquinas was more optimistic about how much we can know
about God than Kant was.
C. Olson’s discussion of Lessing and Troelsch was helpful. Lessing
had a ditch, which said that we cannot draw universal truths from
history. Olson said Lessing’s rationale for this was that there is so
much that we do not know about history, and what we “know” changes.
Troelsch highlighted that Christianity was influenced by its culture. I
am not of the caliber of Troelsch, but I have had similar thoughts: so
much of the Bible reflects its cultural surroundings and mindsets, so
how can we derive anything universal from it? I gained some respect for
Bultmann’s demythologization project in reading this book. I remember
trying to explain Bultmann to a Christian student, and he mocked
demythologization as an attempt to keep Christianity up with the times,
to make it trendy. The thing is, our cosmology today is not entirely the
same as the cosmology of the ancients, so Bultmann’s attempt to seek a
universal or existential truth in the Bible behind the mythological
layers is understandable.
D. Olson says that John Locke downplayed miracles, but I recall
learning in a Christianity class that Locke saw Jesus’ miracles as
attesting to the truth of Christianity. I am not saying that Olson is
wrong, since he knows more than I do, but I wonder how to square what he
said with what I learned in that class.
E. Olson addresses questions that readers may have. Did such-and-such
a theologian believe that Jesus actually and literally rose from the
dead? Did such-and-such a liberation theologian see violent revolution
as a viable option?
F. In discussing liberation theology, Olson has a paragraph about
poverty in Latin America, and it effectively conveyed the dire situation
in which many people there find themselves.
G. Rahner is often characterized as one who believes in the natural
human ability to know God, but Olson shows that the supernatural plays a
significant role in enlightening people, in Rahner’s thought.
H. Some of the critiques that Olson highlights seem rather obvious.
For example, Carl Henry defined rationality more in terms of inner
consistency than a solid foundational basis (i.e., evidence), and the
response to that was, “Well, is not Buddhism internally consistent? Why
is it false while Christianity is true?” My suspicion is, though, that
Henry anticipated that objection and may even have responded to it.
Hauerwas focused on communities shaped by the Gospel rather than
foundationalism, and an objection to that was, “What truth would check
the community from straying?” Olson seemed to consider that objection to
be unfair, but I think it raises a valid question. Is there anything
other than the desires of the community that would be authoritative
enough to keep the community in check?
It is hard for me to do justice to this book in a review, since it
covers so much territory. I recommend it, as an introductory textbook
for students and for people who was to learn about modern theology. This
book provides a roadmap for those who want to go deeper, but, in many
cases, one can also get a sense in reading this book that he or she is
understanding the theologians’ contributions, as well as the rationale
for them.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.