by Jacob Aitken
Van Ruler, Arnold A. This Earthly Life Matters: The Promise of Arnold A. Van Ruler for Ecotheology. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2023.
This volume overlaps with many loci in systematic theology: God, creation, providence, humanity, sin, etc. Most of the topics are treated chronologically. Many of these topics are extracted from volume 3 of Van Ruler’s collected works.
Introduction
This is a very good book but not necessarily for the reasons given by the editors. Welcome indeed are the deeper theological books from Neo-Calvinists. Whether or not culture has been reclaimed, it is important to remember that there is more to theology, more to the Christian worldview, than simply redeeming the arts. I am somewhat confused, though. I do not get the impression that all of the editors share the same focus that Van Ruler has. It is one thing to say we should be stewards of God’s creation because “this earthly life matters.” Few would disagree. It is another to say we should feel guilty because of climate change, per some remarks by Ernst Conradie. Conradie also makes several ambiguous remarks that could either be interpreted to mean (a) let us get the conversation started or (b) you should do likewise. For example, noting Van Ruler’s interest in ecology, Conradie concedes “he was not a vegetarian.” What is the purpose of this remark? Is it to say, indirectly, that we should be vegetarians? Or perhaps it simply delineates where Van Ruler did and did not take his so-called ecology. The same ambiguity holds with remarks about the evils of racism, capitalism, and the like.
Ecotheology
One should not be surprised that Neo-Calvinists would enter the “ecology” debate, given their strong emphasis on “grace restoring nature.” Of course, that raises the obvious question: what is the specific connection between a creation theology and ecotheology? Surveying the Christian responses throughout church history, Van Ruler adopts a typology similar to Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture” thesis (kindle loc. 889):
- Manicheanism: the God of creation is different from the God of salvation.
- Deism: God created the world, but he is largely indifferent to saving it.
- Anabaptist: Salvation replaces creation.
- Roman Catholicism: Salvation perfects creation.
- The Reformed or Neo-Calvinist: Salvation restores creation.
One of the editors, Conradie, bemoans the fact that Van Ruler did not address issues like animal rights, racism, capitalism,and the environment. It is hard to know how seriously we should take such a remark, though it does raise a good question: given the strong emphasis on man and his materiality, and not necessarily a wrong emphasis per Psalm 8, it is not clear why one should focus on “animal rights.”
God
Van Ruler begins with a number of possible definitions of God, notably Paul Tillich’s anemic “Ground of Being” (loc. 1454). Van Ruler admits this is an inadequate definition, but he is not ready to dismiss it. His discussion is not clear, but it seems he wants to keep man and God separate, which is admirable, but he does not want to completely separate them from “being.”Man before God should be ready to say “yes” to being, to embrace its shalom. If that is the case, then it makes sense to say that God is the ground of being.
Our knowledge of God, however, is “deficient,” by which he means “oriented to mystery” (loc.1477). It seems he wants to maintain the archetypal/ectypal distinction, but it is not clear why he calls the latter, the ectypal distinction, our finite knowledge of God, “deficient.” A deficit implies a lack, a fault.
Although some of Van Ruler’s speculation gets him off track, his emphasis on mystery reminds us that knowledge of God is extremely practical: it involves our whole being, not merely some faculty (loc. 1541).
Unfortunately, Van Ruler is skeptical about proving God’s existence from the external world. Rather, human beings should simply bear witness to God. Maybe so, but Romans 1 seems to indicate that the external world does show forth God’s power and Godhead. This is no less clear than asserting that God is the “ground of being.” In fact, it is clearer. I know what Paul meant. I am not sure I ever understood Tillich.
God as Trinity
Although we cannot expect any new developments in Trinitarian theology–and that is a good thing!–we do like some of Van Ruler’s comments on the Trinity. Echoing–if not always realizing–St Athanasius, Van Ruler reminds us that Trinitarianism is a theological grammar, a form of speaking. He writes: “we have to consider that the dogma of the church is a rule of speech, an element from the grammar of the language of the Spirit in which the gospel has to be expressed” (loc. 1687). It would have been helpful to see some examples of this, but if one reads Thomas Torrance then the meaning is clear.
Unfortunately, the next section is not as clear. He speaks of “movement” in God, but it is not clear what he means by movement. I grant he probably does not have in mind the Thomist definition of movement: a change from potentiality to actuality. If by movement he means something like dynamic interaction between the persons of the Trinity, that is fine. It is not clear, though, that is what he means. He starts off well, “In God it [movement] goes from the one to the other” (loc. 1700). This is what older writers called the “processions.” From this he concludes: “That makes it possible for the person who believes as a Christian to accept time.” That is by no means clear. Is he saying time is possible because there is already time in the Trinity? or is it rather the Trinity makes time possible, while remaining timeless?” He does not say.
Providence
He begins on an ominous note: “According to the biblical message, God is less concerned with the church and more with the world. The church is merely an intermezzo, the world is the real work of God” (loc. 2478). This is not dispensationalism, but it has a very similar structure. By this he wants to remind us that “the congregation never replaces reality.” It is not clear who ever said that. To be sure, some Manicheans and Anabaptists do reject the world, but even then, at least with the latter, they never said the church replaced created reality. It is not even clear what that would look like. Van Ruler is aware of Ephesians 1’s claim that the church is “the fullness of him who fills all in all.” It does not seem, though, to have much of an impact on his theology.
If the church is merely an intermezzo, one wonders how central Jesus’s own role is. Indeed, it appears that Jesus is not the focus of history. His argument seems to be thus: “If we say that Christ is the meaning of history in this sense, what can that mean but that the meaning of history is located in him? Then we do not say it is illumined by him” (loc. 4028). Van Ruler wants to avoid some kind of historical Christomonism not dissimilar to that of Barth’s. We can appreciate that, but it seems much clarity is lost in all the nuance.
I think there is another problem that he is trying to avoid, though he does not clearly say. For history to be history, there must be a beginning, middle, and end. So, if we say that Christ is the “center of history,” what, then, do we mean by the beginning and end? I am not sure, but I think Van Ruler wants to avoid that. I suppose that is commendable, though I wonder how pressing an issue it is. Perhaps he means that reducing history to Jesus relativizes the “created-ness” of history, and thus creation itself. Perhaps.
Creation and Chaos
Van Ruler has an excellent section on the nature of chaos, particularly as it applies to Genesis 1:1-2. Far from seeing the original creation as an ocean of tranquil being, Van Ruler notes chaos was already present. Chaos allows God to break and restructure things. Chaos is not terror, though, or anything inherently negative. Chaos is the multiplicity within being. And multiplicity, contrary to some Hellenistic thought, is not evil. Indeed, God creates in plurals.
Chaos should not be confused with ataraxia, the loss of order. Indeed, chaos is the “substrate of all Being” (loc. 2807). It is not evil. That is why God “plays with Leviathan.” So far, that is good. I do wish, however, that Van Ruler would have also discussed why God “shatters the heads of Rahab” (Psalm 74).
Chaos is with us even today. Chaos is merely the “overloading” of information that is too much for any one person to process.
Sin
Sin is guilt (loc. 4543). That is how Van Ruler defines sin. That is a completely inadequate definition. Sin includes guilt, but it is more than that: it is primarily lawlessness (1 John 3:4). Van Ruler opts for this definition because he wants to avoid any form of Manicheanism. He does not want to see sin as a thing. That is admirable, but it is not clear why defining sin as lawlessness entails seeing sin as a thing.
Although his definition is inadequate, Van Ruler emphasis on guilt highlights a key insight from Luther: it is man who is a sinner, not merely the individual acts he does. Sin goes to the root.
Holes in the Dyke
In the interview on the possibility of alien life, Van Ruler is asked if original sin can be maintained in light of the theory of evolution. His response: “I am not quite clear as to that” (loc. 4488). To his credit he wants to cling to the historical data in the Old Testament, but he does not seem confident he can do that. I do appreciate his honesty. If evolution is true, then it is not clear how the cosmic dimensions of the Fall can be maintained. The theistic evolutionist, if hard pressed, must admit, at least on the surface level, some form of mythology in the Fall.
Conclusion
There is much good in this volume. It is also valuable to historical theologians and analysts of modern religious movements. Van Ruler represents a mainline Neo-Calvinist voice. With him we see the pros and cons of where the movement was in the late 1950s and 1960s. Like all Neo-Calvinists, he is strong on the doctrine of creation. Indeed, regarding creation and chaos, he breaks new and exciting ground. Unfortunately, his discussion of God, while never heterodox, is not clear. His remarks on evolution do not give us much hope, either. Notwithstanding these criticisms, this volume is available at an inexpensive price on kindle.
Reviewed by Jacob Aitken