Two seemingly distinct areas in theological studies have enjoyed renewed interest in recent years. A variety of authors have emphasized both the doctrine of creation and the method of theological retrieval. Each area is rich for theological discovery and construction. While some have recently sought to apply theological retrieval specifically to the doctrine of creation, fewer have looked to the early church fathers.[1] Thankfully, Gavin Ortlund has undertaken that task by mining the writings of the most influential theologian of Western Christianity, Augustine.
At least in part, Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation is the product of Ortlund’s resident fellowship at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was a part of the Creation Project. This work interacts with Augustine’s original writings, contemporary Augustinian scholarship, and modern literature on the doctrine of creation. Ortlund states that he desires that “this book will be a resource for the study of the doctrine of creation, will contribute to Augustine scholarship, and will encourage humility, carefulness, and conviction in the church today.”[2]
The book is predicated on the assumption that, by retrieving Augustine’s understanding of the doctrine of creation, the modern church can reconceptualize its modern framework(s), leading to more fruitful discussions, especially in controversial areas. To illustrate, Ortlund asks the reader to imagine Augustine joining a meeting between the various camps of creationism: BioLogos (evolutionary creationism), Reasons to Believe (old-earth creationism), and Answers in Genesis (young-earth creationism). He inquires about what Augustine might offer that would be insightful for these organizations and the broader evangelical world. This book offers a robust answer to that question.
Summary
The book itself consists of five chapters, as well as an introduction and conclusion. In chapter one, Ortlund demonstrates how Augustine may help to broaden current horizons on the doctrine of creation. Specifically, by examining Augustine’s work, he uncovers what we might generally miss in our readings of Genesis. Instead of beginning chapter one in any one of Augustine’s writings on Genesis, Ortlund begins this chapter in Augustine’s Confessions, discussing mankind’s creaturely longing. Ortlund writes, “God is the essence of creaturely happiness, and simultaneously beyond creaturely capacity. We were made for God, but cannot hold him. He alone can fill us, but we cannot contain him.”[3] Chapter two, likewise, highlights the importance of humility as a virtue of theological reflection. He states, “just as Augustine’s vision of creation expands our categories, his humility can inform our method.”[4] Chapter three moves toward recovering Augustine’s views on Genesis 1. Specifically, Ortlund seek to utilize Augustine’s conception of “literal” in applying a consistent hermeneutic to the Genesis narrative. He is careful throughout the book not to jump to anachronistic conclusions but instead allows Augustine to speak on his own terms and subsequently surveys the implications of those thoughts.
A curious inclusion, chapter four deals with Augustine’s views of animal death in light of his understanding of the Genesis account. Ortlund’s purpose for this chapter is to “draw attention to the greater complexity in the historical record.”[5] He highlights Augustine’s emphasis on the goodness of creation—especially in areas where one may intuitively balk. For example, he highlights Augustine’s defense of the goodness of both insects and carnivores. Finally, chapter five addresses Augustine’s views of Adam and Eve. This chapter may be the most provocative. Ortlund puts Augustine’s works in the larger dialogue of evolution and creationism. To be sure, this area produces much anxiety and debate among evangelicals—and not without good reason.[6]
Ortlund offers a compelling retrieval that both academics and the church-at-large can utilize. In the process, he masterfully translates difficult concepts into accessible ideas and frameworks. Even within the structure of the book, Ortlund avoids the trappings found in many modern discussions of creation and creationism. Instead of simply trying to retrieve Augustine’s particular view for dating the age of the earth, Ortlund instead enlists Augustine’s views for a broader understanding of the doctrine of creation that is not only biblical but also Christocentric.
Analysis
Ortlund’s work is exemplary in two major ways. First, the volume provides astounding readability on a topic that could otherwise be complex and dense. He is profoundly skilled at writing in a way that maintains nuance and precision, while also avoiding the cumbersome language often found in academic volumes. He thus sets an excellent standard for how one should write a book of this variety. Second, he sets a superb example in the content of the book. He is not interested in retrieval for the sake of retrieval. Instead, he seems hopeful that this task of retrieval can also lead to academic and ecclesial renewal.
He helps readers to recognize the reductionist quality around much of the discussion on the doctrine of creation. While plenty of resources focus on creationism, Ortlund seeks to expand our theological framework to include ideas and virtues that may otherwise be missing. Ortlund challenges the reader to empathize with Augustine’s wonder at God’s creative work, while also emulating his humility in discussing this ever-important doctrine. Further, he provocatively brings Augustine into tense and complex discussions on the nature of creation.
The author strives for an objective representation of Augustine’s views in light of current debates. Consistently throughout the book, Ortlund is hesitant to offer a full-throated affirmation of Augustine’s views for contemporary application, often pointing out where a certain framework may be anachronistic to Augustine’s times. He is careful with prescription, while at the same time not avoiding practical implications.
With this caveat in mind, Ortlund is nonetheless interested in how Augustine’s views and modern understandings of evolution may intersect. Instead of relegating the conversation to young-earth and old-earth views, Ortlund expands the dialogue to include evolutionary creationism. He even concludes his final chapter by claiming that “[m]uch in Augustine’s theology is favorable” to believing in both a historical Adam and evolution. In my opinion, this chapter is Ortlund’s weakest. He admits that Augustine predates any discussion of evolution in our modern debates.[7] Yet Ortlund seeks to utilize Augustine’s views of Genesis 2–3, including his conception of rationes seminales, so thatthis last chapter pushes Augustine’s work beyond what retrieval can adequately provide.[8]
Ortlund’s intended audience is a curious one. To be sure, this book is an academic work, which is demonstrated by his thorough research and well-argued thesis. Yet Ortlund writes in a way that is incredibly accessible. Thus, while the book certainly contributes to a larger academic discussion in the study of Augustine, theological retrieval, and the doctrine of creation, it is not written in a way that excludes the educated laymen. As Ortlund himself hopes, the book truly seems to be both for the academic and for the broader evangelical community.
A couple extrapolations present themselves in light of Ortlund’s work. First, one immediately wonders how similar books on Irenaeus, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, or others would be useful regarding the discussion of creation and creationism. Certainly, Augustine’s place as the seminal theologian in the Western church has its priority in Ortlund’s work.
Second, one wonders how utilizing more recent and diverse positions may expand the dialogue of this work. For example, engaging with Joshua Swamidass’s recent work in The Genealogical Adam and Eve could further elucidate this dialogue.[9] Ortlund’s final chapter demonstrates significant overlap with Swamidass’s thesis. Ortlund notes the genetic findings and the relevant theological concerns, as well as a variety of views regarding Adam’s and Eve’s historicity, but they largely follow paradigms found in other volumes.[10]
Gavin Ortlund’s work provides a wonderful example of what good theological retrieval can look like in modern discussions. In an area too often focused on a limited number of issues, Ortlund graciously leads his readers, by way of Augustine, to think more broadly about the doctrine of creation. In doing so, his readers will hopefully come away not only with a desire for greater hermeneutical humility but also a grander vision of the doctrine of creation that emphasizes man’s creatureliness, the importance of humility, and an acknowledgement of the complexity of our modern debates. Ortlund is right in stating that this theological task is for the whole of one’s being.[11] His book speaks to both the mind and the affections. Readers would do well to take Ortlund’s advice to listen to Augustine and consider his work in light of our modern disputes.
[1]Certainly Bruce Ashford and Craig Bartholomew’s recent work is a wonderful example of both retrieval and construction. See Bruce Riley Ashford and Craig G. Bartholomew, The Doctrine of Creation: A Constructive Kuyperian Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020). Similarly, John Collins seeks to retrieve and utilize C. S. Lewis’s hermeneutic(s) regarding the doctrine of creation and interpreting the book of Genesis. See C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1–11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2018).
[2]Gavin Ortlund, Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020), 13.
[3]Ibid.,23.
[4]Ibid.,69.
[5]Ibid.,153.
[6]Ibid.,186.
[7]Ibid., 212.
[8]To be fair, Ortlund consistently tries to avoid anachronistic claims. He concludes the chapter stating “Augustine would encourage caution in assessing the relation of Adam and Eve to evolutionary claims. While Augustine can resource those who want to maintain a historical fall, he should not be used to buttress an entrenched position that simply skates past the scientific challenges without critical engagement, closed off to any possible revision or further nuance” (Ibid., 239).
[9]See S. Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019).
[10]See Ardel B. Caneday and Matthew Barrett, eds., Four Views on the Historical Adam (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2013).
[11]Ortlund, 246.
Recent Comments