THE BIBLE, NATURAL SCIENCE, AND EVOLUTION, by Russell W. Maatman. Reformed Fellowship, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49510. 1970, pp. 165, paperback, $3.50. Reviewed by Professor Johannes G. Vos, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.
The author is professor of chemistry and chairman of the division of natural science at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa. In what he has written he shows the utmost fidelity to the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. He is strongly critical of evolutionary theories on both Biblical and scientific grounds. The hypothetical nature of evolutionary views is strongly brought out and repeatedly emphasized. The alleged evidences for biological evolution are shown to be circumstantial in nature, not amounting to valid proof. Anatomical similarities do not prove genetic relationship, though they may suggest it to scientists who are already committed to the evolutionary view.
Dr. Maatman is critical of those who advocate the idea of a “young earth” and who insist upon a literal “solar day” interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. On the other hand, he insists that the Bible does teach truths which come within the category of science, and he shows how Bible-believing Christians knew some things by divine revelation which became known by scientific research much later. He insists on the priority of Scripture for forming our concepts of both cosmic and human origins, and rejects the idea of interpreting Scripture in terms of some idea or principle derived from outside the Bible.
A chapter entitled “In Defense of Science” seeks to defend science and scientists against various charges based upon misunderstanding, improper jumping to conclusions, and what might be called heresy by association. The author shows how zealous Christians have sometimes damaged their own cause by the use of ignorant or fallacious arguments against evolution.
The humanistic world-view is constantly contrasted with the Biblical or Christian world-view, and it is shown that the “natural man” must inevitably frame a man-centered world-view, a view which affirms that the universe is fully comprehensible, at least in principle, and which denies the reality of a transcendent God outside of or beyond the universe who created and sustains it, and whose revelation is necessary for a truly valid understanding of the universe.
The natural man rejects creation ex nihilo—the concept of a universe finite in both space and time—because he cannot avoid doing so. Non-Christian scientific thought “desperately needs the concept of no beginning” (p. 83). The non-Christian thinker must hold the idea that the universe is eternal if he is to avoid admitting the idea of divine creation. But the concept of no beginning, which the natural man holds so tenaciously, is an irrational idea involving a breakdown in human reasoning, and is therefore actually destructive of the idea of complete comprehension.
Dr. Maatman defends the reliability of calculations of the age of the earth based upon radioactivity of rocks, the speed of light, and other considerations. He grants that anyone of these alone might be suspect, but holds that the different methods check each other, thus confirming the reliability of the conclusion. He adds that the radiocarbon or Carbon-14 method of dating is applicable to organic remains only, and therefore cannot be relevant for determining the age of the earth.
With regard to the “apparent age” problem, Dr. Maatman concedes that it is possible that God could have created a universe with a built-in apparent age. At the time of creation, were trees instantly created which nevertheless contained growth rings seeming to indicate a past growth process requiring many years of time? While conceding the possibility, Dr. Maatman adds that “the Christian should admit freely that God created a large number of clues, all pointing to about the same conclusion. The many independently-determined conclusions agree. The different methods do not give random answers, with some indicating a very young age of the earth and stars, others a great age, and still others an intermediate age” (pp. 108-9). “If God created the universe with a built-in apparently great age, no correct scientific evidence could indicate anything other than a great age” (p. 109). For this reason, “the apparent-age questions must be evaluated theologically, not scientifically . . . the best answer that· man can obtain to this question must be the answer developed carefully by theologians who are faithful to the Bible” (ibid.).
The author strongly stresses the real uniqueness of the human body. “Nothing else in creation is like the body of man” (p. 148). Anatomical similarities between man and animals do not prove genetic relationship. Mankind was originally deathless, and human death came only as the consequence of sin. Animal death must have existed before man’s fall into sin, else how could Adam and Eve have understood the statement, “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die”? But if the theistic evolutionists are correct, the first humans had animal parents that were subject to death, and how could these mortal animals beget humans possessing immortality? From the standpoint of theistic evolution, it would be necessary to suppose that man came from mortal animals, was thereupon granted a “temporary immortality,” which immortality in turn was lost when man fell into sin. The author rejects this notion in the following manner: “Perhaps the temporary immortality idea is such a bizarre idea, that showing it to be the logical outgrowth of theistic evolution will help some to understand that there is no Christian alternative to the idea that the ‘dust’ from which man was made was non-living matter” (p. 153). The author rejects theistic evolution as an unsatisfactory makeshift to bridge the gaps between differing forms of life.
Dr. Maatman’s entire presentation is epistemologically oriented. “The Christian can be a Christian only insofar as he adopts completely the Christian position. He can show the natural man that the correct starting point, the only structuring assumption which corresponds to this universe, is that there is a God outside the universe he has created, and that he has revealed himself in his Bible. As the Christian removes from his thinking that which impedes his understanding of the Bible, he can remove elements of the natural man’s thinking from his thoughts. As he allows the Bible to speak to him of creation, of the universe, of man, of God incarnate, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of whatever else God chooses to teach man through the Bible, the Christian will be brought closer to God. The witness of the Christian to all men will have unbelievable power because his witness will be true” (p. 165).
This book is a notable contribution to scholarly literature that is critical of the evolutionary worldview. It should be widely circulated, and will certainly be influential, especially in circles where the Bible is regarded as the infallible Word of God while at the same time the teaching of science has gravitated toward the untenable compromise-view of theistic evolution.
COMPETENT TO COUNSEL by Jay E. Adams. Presbyterian and ncfonned Publishing Co., Nutley, N.J., 1970; 313 pp.; $4.50. Subject and Scripture Indexes. Reviewed by Rev. Peter De Jong, pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
This book strikes one like a breath of fresh air in a room that badly needs some ventilation. In plain and forthright style, Dr. Jay E. Adams, professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Seminary, describes how as a pastor he blundered into the problems of pastoral counseling, tried to get what help he could from books on the subject, most of which advocated the methods of Rogers or the principles of Freud, and found them frustrating and practically worthless.
Tempted to follow the advice of mental health propaganda to refer all serious problems to psychiatrists or state mental institutions, Adams found that people so counseled frequently became worse instead of better and were given counsel no Christian could accept. In his disillusionment with the professionals and their advice, he began as a Christian just to try to apply scriptural exhortations to the problems in hand, with gratifying results. Later, faced with the responsibility of teaching practical theology he began more systematic study of Biblical materials, observing that much of what is today excused as “mental illness” the Bible designates and treats as “sin.” In this connection he also studied and gives credit to O. Hobart Mowrer, who “challenged the very existence of institutionalized psychiatry,” stating that “he believed the current psychiatric dogmas were false,” and that “psychiatry had largely failed.”
Central to Mowrer’s methods was an emphasis on personal responsibility; Mowrer criticized current treatment of “mental illness” for removing responsibility fr?m the counselee and searching into the past “to find others (parents, the church, society, grandmother) on whom to place the blame.” He said that the counselee “must stop blaming others and accept responsibility for his own poor behavior. Problems may be solved, not by ventilation of feelings, but rather by confession of sin.” Although Dr. Adams rejects Mowrer’s own system as humanistic, he states: “Christians may thank God that in his providence he has used Mowrer and others to awaken us to the fact that the ‘mentally ill’ can be helped. But Christians must turn to the Scriptures to discover how God (not Mowrer) says to do it.” His own starting point he states plainly: “All concepts, terms and methods used in counseling need to be reexamined biblically. Not one thing can be accepted from the past (or the present) without biblical warrant.”
After this introduction Dr. Adams gets into the body of his work by describing the present confusion and disillusionment of the psychiatrists, the way in which Freudian thinking has destroyed moral standards, and the need for Christians to challenge and oppose the dogmas that have too long been accepted in this area and to begin to give Christian counsel instead of referring and deferring to counselors who undermine the Christian faith.
Real counseling, Adams points out, is the work of the Holy Spirit by means of the Word of God. In most cases the “mentally ill,” he feels, need to be recognized and treated as sinners to be helped with the gospel. (Homosexuality, for example, is really a sin rather than a sickness.)
The method of counseling Dr. Adams proposes he calls “nouthetic” from the Greek word used in the New Testament for “admonishing” (Col. 3: 16; Rom. 15:14). Such counseling, recognizing that something is wrong, aims “to effect personality and behavioral change,” and so to help the one being counseled. This Christian approach to counseling pits one squarely against the common ideas of Rogers that counseling must be non-directive, non-judgmental, concerned with feelings rather than actions, detached. Effective counseling, Christian counseling must be directed by the Word of God and give such direction. It may not “accept” sin but must oppose it, it must be concerned with actions, and it must involve the counselor if he is really to establish a helpful relationship with the one he is trying to help. Sins must be removed by confession, not excused; the Christian counselor must reflect hope, not the uncertainty of too many professionals.
The author feels that there is a place for group counseling but only with those involved in a problem, not with others. He devotes some attention to application of this method in marriage problems and in the strategic field of Christian teaching.
How is one to evaluate this book? It is likely to arouse some sharp criticism because of its radical departures from so much of common psychiatric theory and practice. Yet the author’s viewpoint is as convincing as it is refreshing to one who is concerned about trying to view and deal with these difficult matters from a distinctly Christian starting point. The criticisms and conclusions of some psychiatrists regarding past practice seem also to support Dr. Adams’ critical observations. I recall one psychiatrist, evidently not a Christian, telling a group of us ministers that (in contrast with the “non-directive” ideas of one of the group) he personally felt that many patients needed some direction. He also observed that much of what he and his colleagues were doing the ministers “ought to be doing.”
Among the excellent features of the book are its evidence of careful and extensive study and use of the Bible, the wide background of experience in which its conclusions are set, and the readable and sometimes racy style with which the writer makes his points. How often does one meet with a writer who tosses in such a parenthesis as this? “One can endure anything (even this book) if he knows that it has an end.”
Or consider the summary of the various viewpoints introduced by the illustration of a man sitting on a tack, to be confronted in turn by the doctor who prescribes tranquilizers, the surgeon who wants to block the nerves, the Freudian who seeks a sexual explanation in childhood experiences, and Rogers who gives no direction at all! Adams’ kind of counselor will tell the poor fellow: “Get off that tack. Now that you’re up, sit down on a chair over here and we’ll talk about how you can avoid sitting on tacks in the future.”
It may be worth our while to compare this book with that of G. Brillenburg Wurth, Christian Counseling in the Light of Modern Psychology, published in 1962. Both are designed to be practical and popular rather than academic. Brillenburg Wurth’s begins with a comprehensive historical review of the subject and then makes a survey of the field with its modern problems. Only after this extensive introduction does his book deal systematically with the principles of pastoral care and some of its practical applications. His book is more of a systematic introduction to the whole field than this new book of Dr. Adams. Usually his introduction to various writers and movements expresses both appreciation and criticism. And that criticism, he wants to base not on a supposed neutral position but on the unique ground which a Christian must take on the Word of God. On this starting point he and Dr. Adams agree—which is the outstanding virtue of both books.
Dr. Adams, writing later, out of the peculiar situation of the American pastor and Christian today, takes aim more sharply and critically at current psychiatric theory and practice. His aim is in this respect both narrower and more pointed. In a way, I believe that the two books tend to complement each other. If you are interested in a forthrightly Christian, provocative, sometimes sparkling new book on a subject on which we badly need the light of the gospel, don’t miss Dr. Adams’ Competent to Counsel.
THE BIBLE, NATURAL SCIENCE, AND EVOLUTION by Russell W. Maatman. Published by Reformed Fellowship, Inc. Grand Rapids, Mich. 1970. $3.50. (Order from Reformed Fellowship, Sioux Center, Iowa 51250.) Reviewed by Dr. John W. Klotz, professor of science at Concordia College, River Forest, Illinois.
Here’s an excellent book by a man who knows science and knows Christianity, a man who is a committed practicing Christian and a committed practicing scientist. He knows that you can’t ignore or denigrate modern science, because he knows it grew up in a Christian environment and that the gifts it brings are God’s gifts to His children. So he’s as harsh on those who improperly criticize science as he is on those who improperly reject the Scriptures.
The book begins by laying carefully the foundation for the discussion. Maatman distinguishes sharply between the position of the natural man and that of the Christian. He insists quite properly that there is only one Christian position to be taken when there is a discussion of the relation between science and theology, and that is accepting the Biblical account at face value. Professor Maatman points out that modern science originated in a Christian environment and that non-Christian countries have made progress only by copying the science that grew up in the western, Christian-oriented world.
Professor Maatman discusses miracles and has no problem in accepting them as reports of actual events. Indeed he believes that the Christian has less problem in dealing with natural laws than does the natural man because he accepts miracles. He lists a number of problems which the natural man faces, such as finite or infinite age of the universe, finite or infinite size, cause and effect, and believes these are very difficult problems for the natural man because he has real difficulties at the “edges” of science.
The last half of the book is spent in discussing the problem of evolution under five different topics: the eternity of matter, the age of the universe, the origin of life, the evolution of life, and the origin of man. The author insists that answers first be sought in Scripture and only then should confirmation be sought in science. He believes that matter was created by God’s almighty power, that life originated by God’s almighty power, that while change has taken place, this change has taken place only within the limits of the “kinds” of creation, and that man was specially created. He rejects theistic evolution. He does, however, believe that the earth may be very old and rejects the literal interpretation of the creation days. There is a good discussion on the non-biological consequences and implications of the theory of evolution.
There are some minor points with which this reviewer would like to take issue. This reviewer believes that scientific ideas change more frequently than Professor Maatman believes they do. Maatman does not believe that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics: this reviewer believes it does. Maatman believes that it would be sinful to participate in a search for the dead body of Christ, since Scripture tells us He is risen: this reviewer does not believe it would be sinful. The Christian would know in advance that the body would not be found: he might participate in order to bring negative evidence for the truth of the Biblical account.
My major objection is Maatman’s unwillingness to accept the creation days as solar days, for thereby he spoils an otherwise excellent book and weakens his whole argument. There is no doubt that he is seeking to solve a troublesome problem: the many evidences that the eartl1 is old. While this reviewer does not accept the idea that the earth is billions of years old, he recognizes that it is older than the age suggested by the Ussher chronology and he also recognizes that his point of view is based on deductions from Scripture and not on direct statements of Scripture.
Yet this reviewer believes that Genesis is clear in stating that the creation days were solar days. (He believes there may be more time between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham than regarding the genealogies as chronologies would suggest: for that reason he believes the age of the earth cannot be clearly established.)
Maatman makes much of the resting of God which he properly believes continues: he reasons that the day of God’s resting cannot be an ordinary solar day, and therefore the other days need not be regarded as solar days.
Yet one is impressed with the repetition of evening and morning in the account of the six days. In discussing biological evolution Maatman says that the repetition of “after his (or their) kind” seems to indicate that God is communicating something of special importance and therefore rejects it. This reviewer believes that the repetition of “evening and morning” in Genesis 1 indicates that God wishes to communicate something of special importance—that these arc ordinary days. Moreover, it is interesting in connection with Maalman’s argument about God’s resting that “evening and morning” do not occur in Scripture in connection with the seventh day. God was communicating to them as well as to us. Exodus 20:8-11 seems to this reviewer to make it quite clear that creation was accomplished in six solar days, and Maatman’s argument that there were sabbatical years as well as a weekly sabbath doesn’t seem very meaningful. There arc many excellent things in the book. It is written in an easily understood style and should be helpful particularly to those of limited scientific background. Maatman weakens his position though by rejecting the idea that the creation days were solar days. This reviewer is reminded of Bryan’s experience at Dayton, Tennessee. It was when Darrow got him to admit that the days of Genesis 1 might not be solar days that he found himself in trouble: it was then that Darrow hammered away with the question of why he insisted on taking the rest of the account in a literal way if he believed the days need not be interpreted literally.
The author is professor of chemistry and chairman of the division of natural science at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa. In what he has written he shows the utmost fidelity to the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. He is strongly critical of evolutionary theories on both Biblical and scientific grounds. The hypothetical nature of evolutionary views is strongly brought out and repeatedly emphasized. The alleged evidences for biological evolution are shown to be circumstantial in nature, not amounting to valid proof. Anatomical similarities do not prove genetic relationship, though they may suggest it to scientists who are already committed to the evolutionary view.
Dr. Maatman is critical of those who advocate the idea of a “young earth” and who insist upon a literal “solar day” interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. On the other hand, he insists that the Bible does teach truths which come within the category of science, and he shows how Bible-believing Christians knew some things by divine revelation which became known by scientific research much later. He insists on the priority of Scripture for forming our concepts of both cosmic and human origins, and rejects the idea of interpreting Scripture in terms of some idea or principle derived from outside the Bible.
A chapter entitled “In Defense of Science” seeks to defend science and scientists against various charges based upon misunderstanding, improper jumping to conclusions, and what might be called heresy by association. The author shows how zealous Christians have sometimes damaged their own cause by the use of ignorant or fallacious arguments against evolution.
The humanistic world-view is constantly contrasted with the Biblical or Christian world-view, and it is shown that the “natural man” must inevitably frame a man-centered world-view, a view which affirms that the universe is fully comprehensible, at least in principle, and which denies the reality of a transcendent God outside of or beyond the universe who created and sustains it, and whose revelation is necessary for a truly valid understanding of the universe.
The natural man rejects creation ex nihilo—the concept of a universe finite in both space and time—because he cannot avoid doing so. Non-Christian scientific thought “desperately needs the concept of no beginning” (p. 83). The non-Christian thinker must hold the idea that the universe is eternal if he is to avoid admitting the idea of divine creation. But the concept of no beginning, which the natural man holds so tenaciously, is an irrational idea involving a breakdown in human reasoning, and is therefore actually destructive of the idea of complete comprehension.
Dr. Maatman defends the reliability of calculations of the age of the earth based upon radioactivity of rocks, the speed of light, and other considerations. He grants that anyone of these alone might be suspect, but holds that the different methods check each other, thus confirming the reliability of the conclusion. He adds that the radiocarbon or Carbon-14 method of dating is applicable to organic remains only, and therefore cannot be relevant for determining the age of the earth.
With regard to the “apparent age” problem, Dr. Maatman concedes that it is possible that God could have created a universe with a built-in apparent age. At the time of creation, were trees instantly created which nevertheless contained growth rings seeming to indicate a past growth process requiring many years of time? While conceding the possibility, Dr. Maatman adds that “the Christian should admit freely that God created a large number of clues, all pointing to about the same conclusion. The many independently-determined conclusions agree. The different methods do not give random answers, with some indicating a very young age of the earth and stars, others a great age, and still others an intermediate age” (pp. 108-9). “If God created the universe with a built-in apparently great age, no correct scientific evidence could indicate anything other than a great age” (p. 109). For this reason, “the apparent-age questions must be evaluated theologically, not scientifically . . . the best answer that· man can obtain to this question must be the answer developed carefully by theologians who are faithful to the Bible” (ibid.).
The author strongly stresses the real uniqueness of the human body. “Nothing else in creation is like the body of man” (p. 148). Anatomical similarities between man and animals do not prove genetic relationship. Mankind was originally deathless, and human death came only as the consequence of sin. Animal death must have existed before man’s fall into sin, else how could Adam and Eve have understood the statement, “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die”? But if the theistic evolutionists are correct, the first humans had animal parents that were subject to death, and how could these mortal animals beget humans possessing immortality? From the standpoint of theistic evolution, it would be necessary to suppose that man came from mortal animals, was thereupon granted a “temporary immortality,” which immortality in turn was lost when man fell into sin. The author rejects this notion in the following manner: “Perhaps the temporary immortality idea is such a bizarre idea, that showing it to be the logical outgrowth of theistic evolution will help some to understand that there is no Christian alternative to the idea that the ‘dust’ from which man was made was non-living matter” (p. 153). The author rejects theistic evolution as an unsatisfactory makeshift to bridge the gaps between differing forms of life.
Dr. Maatman’s entire presentation is epistemologically oriented. “The Christian can be a Christian only insofar as he adopts completely the Christian position. He can show the natural man that the correct starting point, the only structuring assumption which corresponds to this universe, is that there is a God outside the universe he has created, and that he has revealed himself in his Bible. As the Christian removes from his thinking that which impedes his understanding of the Bible, he can remove elements of the natural man’s thinking from his thoughts. As he allows the Bible to speak to him of creation, of the universe, of man, of God incarnate, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of whatever else God chooses to teach man through the Bible, the Christian will be brought closer to God. The witness of the Christian to all men will have unbelievable power because his witness will be true” (p. 165).
This book is a notable contribution to scholarly literature that is critical of the evolutionary worldview. It should be widely circulated, and will certainly be influential, especially in circles where the Bible is regarded as the infallible Word of God while at the same time the teaching of science has gravitated toward the untenable compromise-view of theistic evolution.
COMPETENT TO COUNSEL by Jay E. Adams. Presbyterian and ncfonned Publishing Co., Nutley, N.J., 1970; 313 pp.; $4.50. Subject and Scripture Indexes. Reviewed by Rev. Peter De Jong, pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
This book strikes one like a breath of fresh air in a room that badly needs some ventilation. In plain and forthright style, Dr. Jay E. Adams, professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Seminary, describes how as a pastor he blundered into the problems of pastoral counseling, tried to get what help he could from books on the subject, most of which advocated the methods of Rogers or the principles of Freud, and found them frustrating and practically worthless.
Tempted to follow the advice of mental health propaganda to refer all serious problems to psychiatrists or state mental institutions, Adams found that people so counseled frequently became worse instead of better and were given counsel no Christian could accept. In his disillusionment with the professionals and their advice, he began as a Christian just to try to apply scriptural exhortations to the problems in hand, with gratifying results. Later, faced with the responsibility of teaching practical theology he began more systematic study of Biblical materials, observing that much of what is today excused as “mental illness” the Bible designates and treats as “sin.” In this connection he also studied and gives credit to O. Hobart Mowrer, who “challenged the very existence of institutionalized psychiatry,” stating that “he believed the current psychiatric dogmas were false,” and that “psychiatry had largely failed.”
Central to Mowrer’s methods was an emphasis on personal responsibility; Mowrer criticized current treatment of “mental illness” for removing responsibility fr?m the counselee and searching into the past “to find others (parents, the church, society, grandmother) on whom to place the blame.” He said that the counselee “must stop blaming others and accept responsibility for his own poor behavior. Problems may be solved, not by ventilation of feelings, but rather by confession of sin.” Although Dr. Adams rejects Mowrer’s own system as humanistic, he states: “Christians may thank God that in his providence he has used Mowrer and others to awaken us to the fact that the ‘mentally ill’ can be helped. But Christians must turn to the Scriptures to discover how God (not Mowrer) says to do it.” His own starting point he states plainly: “All concepts, terms and methods used in counseling need to be reexamined biblically. Not one thing can be accepted from the past (or the present) without biblical warrant.”
After this introduction Dr. Adams gets into the body of his work by describing the present confusion and disillusionment of the psychiatrists, the way in which Freudian thinking has destroyed moral standards, and the need for Christians to challenge and oppose the dogmas that have too long been accepted in this area and to begin to give Christian counsel instead of referring and deferring to counselors who undermine the Christian faith.
Real counseling, Adams points out, is the work of the Holy Spirit by means of the Word of God. In most cases the “mentally ill,” he feels, need to be recognized and treated as sinners to be helped with the gospel. (Homosexuality, for example, is really a sin rather than a sickness.)
The method of counseling Dr. Adams proposes he calls “nouthetic” from the Greek word used in the New Testament for “admonishing” (Col. 3: 16; Rom. 15:14). Such counseling, recognizing that something is wrong, aims “to effect personality and behavioral change,” and so to help the one being counseled. This Christian approach to counseling pits one squarely against the common ideas of Rogers that counseling must be non-directive, non-judgmental, concerned with feelings rather than actions, detached. Effective counseling, Christian counseling must be directed by the Word of God and give such direction. It may not “accept” sin but must oppose it, it must be concerned with actions, and it must involve the counselor if he is really to establish a helpful relationship with the one he is trying to help. Sins must be removed by confession, not excused; the Christian counselor must reflect hope, not the uncertainty of too many professionals.
The author feels that there is a place for group counseling but only with those involved in a problem, not with others. He devotes some attention to application of this method in marriage problems and in the strategic field of Christian teaching.
How is one to evaluate this book? It is likely to arouse some sharp criticism because of its radical departures from so much of common psychiatric theory and practice. Yet the author’s viewpoint is as convincing as it is refreshing to one who is concerned about trying to view and deal with these difficult matters from a distinctly Christian starting point. The criticisms and conclusions of some psychiatrists regarding past practice seem also to support Dr. Adams’ critical observations. I recall one psychiatrist, evidently not a Christian, telling a group of us ministers that (in contrast with the “non-directive” ideas of one of the group) he personally felt that many patients needed some direction. He also observed that much of what he and his colleagues were doing the ministers “ought to be doing.”
Among the excellent features of the book are its evidence of careful and extensive study and use of the Bible, the wide background of experience in which its conclusions are set, and the readable and sometimes racy style with which the writer makes his points. How often does one meet with a writer who tosses in such a parenthesis as this? “One can endure anything (even this book) if he knows that it has an end.”
Or consider the summary of the various viewpoints introduced by the illustration of a man sitting on a tack, to be confronted in turn by the doctor who prescribes tranquilizers, the surgeon who wants to block the nerves, the Freudian who seeks a sexual explanation in childhood experiences, and Rogers who gives no direction at all! Adams’ kind of counselor will tell the poor fellow: “Get off that tack. Now that you’re up, sit down on a chair over here and we’ll talk about how you can avoid sitting on tacks in the future.”
It may be worth our while to compare this book with that of G. Brillenburg Wurth, Christian Counseling in the Light of Modern Psychology, published in 1962. Both are designed to be practical and popular rather than academic. Brillenburg Wurth’s begins with a comprehensive historical review of the subject and then makes a survey of the field with its modern problems. Only after this extensive introduction does his book deal systematically with the principles of pastoral care and some of its practical applications. His book is more of a systematic introduction to the whole field than this new book of Dr. Adams. Usually his introduction to various writers and movements expresses both appreciation and criticism. And that criticism, he wants to base not on a supposed neutral position but on the unique ground which a Christian must take on the Word of God. On this starting point he and Dr. Adams agree—which is the outstanding virtue of both books.
Dr. Adams, writing later, out of the peculiar situation of the American pastor and Christian today, takes aim more sharply and critically at current psychiatric theory and practice. His aim is in this respect both narrower and more pointed. In a way, I believe that the two books tend to complement each other. If you are interested in a forthrightly Christian, provocative, sometimes sparkling new book on a subject on which we badly need the light of the gospel, don’t miss Dr. Adams’ Competent to Counsel.
THE BIBLE, NATURAL SCIENCE, AND EVOLUTION by Russell W. Maatman. Published by Reformed Fellowship, Inc. Grand Rapids, Mich. 1970. $3.50. (Order from Reformed Fellowship, Sioux Center, Iowa 51250.) Reviewed by Dr. John W. Klotz, professor of science at Concordia College, River Forest, Illinois.
Here’s an excellent book by a man who knows science and knows Christianity, a man who is a committed practicing Christian and a committed practicing scientist. He knows that you can’t ignore or denigrate modern science, because he knows it grew up in a Christian environment and that the gifts it brings are God’s gifts to His children. So he’s as harsh on those who improperly criticize science as he is on those who improperly reject the Scriptures.
The book begins by laying carefully the foundation for the discussion. Maatman distinguishes sharply between the position of the natural man and that of the Christian. He insists quite properly that there is only one Christian position to be taken when there is a discussion of the relation between science and theology, and that is accepting the Biblical account at face value. Professor Maatman points out that modern science originated in a Christian environment and that non-Christian countries have made progress only by copying the science that grew up in the western, Christian-oriented world.
Professor Maatman discusses miracles and has no problem in accepting them as reports of actual events. Indeed he believes that the Christian has less problem in dealing with natural laws than does the natural man because he accepts miracles. He lists a number of problems which the natural man faces, such as finite or infinite age of the universe, finite or infinite size, cause and effect, and believes these are very difficult problems for the natural man because he has real difficulties at the “edges” of science.
The last half of the book is spent in discussing the problem of evolution under five different topics: the eternity of matter, the age of the universe, the origin of life, the evolution of life, and the origin of man. The author insists that answers first be sought in Scripture and only then should confirmation be sought in science. He believes that matter was created by God’s almighty power, that life originated by God’s almighty power, that while change has taken place, this change has taken place only within the limits of the “kinds” of creation, and that man was specially created. He rejects theistic evolution. He does, however, believe that the earth may be very old and rejects the literal interpretation of the creation days. There is a good discussion on the non-biological consequences and implications of the theory of evolution.
There are some minor points with which this reviewer would like to take issue. This reviewer believes that scientific ideas change more frequently than Professor Maatman believes they do. Maatman does not believe that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics: this reviewer believes it does. Maatman believes that it would be sinful to participate in a search for the dead body of Christ, since Scripture tells us He is risen: this reviewer does not believe it would be sinful. The Christian would know in advance that the body would not be found: he might participate in order to bring negative evidence for the truth of the Biblical account.
My major objection is Maatman’s unwillingness to accept the creation days as solar days, for thereby he spoils an otherwise excellent book and weakens his whole argument. There is no doubt that he is seeking to solve a troublesome problem: the many evidences that the eartl1 is old. While this reviewer does not accept the idea that the earth is billions of years old, he recognizes that it is older than the age suggested by the Ussher chronology and he also recognizes that his point of view is based on deductions from Scripture and not on direct statements of Scripture.
Yet this reviewer believes that Genesis is clear in stating that the creation days were solar days. (He believes there may be more time between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham than regarding the genealogies as chronologies would suggest: for that reason he believes the age of the earth cannot be clearly established.)
Maatman makes much of the resting of God which he properly believes continues: he reasons that the day of God’s resting cannot be an ordinary solar day, and therefore the other days need not be regarded as solar days.
Yet one is impressed with the repetition of evening and morning in the account of the six days. In discussing biological evolution Maatman says that the repetition of “after his (or their) kind” seems to indicate that God is communicating something of special importance and therefore rejects it. This reviewer believes that the repetition of “evening and morning” in Genesis 1 indicates that God wishes to communicate something of special importance—that these arc ordinary days. Moreover, it is interesting in connection with Maalman’s argument about God’s resting that “evening and morning” do not occur in Scripture in connection with the seventh day. God was communicating to them as well as to us. Exodus 20:8-11 seems to this reviewer to make it quite clear that creation was accomplished in six solar days, and Maatman’s argument that there were sabbatical years as well as a weekly sabbath doesn’t seem very meaningful. There arc many excellent things in the book. It is written in an easily understood style and should be helpful particularly to those of limited scientific background. Maatman weakens his position though by rejecting the idea that the creation days were solar days. This reviewer is reminded of Bryan’s experience at Dayton, Tennessee. It was when Darrow got him to admit that the days of Genesis 1 might not be solar days that he found himself in trouble: it was then that Darrow hammered away with the question of why he insisted on taking the rest of the account in a literal way if he believed the days need not be interpreted literally.