God's Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith Book

God's judgment in history--particularly history after the biblical canon was settled, has been of great interest to me for quite some time. Herbert Schlossberg's "Idols For Destruction", C. Gregg Singer's "A Theological Interpretation of American History", and Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" have been three of the most influential books on the topic that I've read.

When I saw this title, I was captured and had high hopes. Keillor begins his work in the context of 9/11 and the question of whether or not it was God's judgment upon America. He examines how conservatives, liberals, and centrists interpreted the event, along with Christian statements on the merit of 9/11 as God's judgment.

I confess I found the 9/11 question of little interest. I believe the legacy of 9/11 is primarily in the socio-political aftermath of the event--namely the Iraq War and the growing security-police state that has arisen in the years since 9/11. 9/11 itself was a tragedy of great magnitude, but the socio-political aftermath is of much greater concern than the original tragedy in the sharp turn America has taken toward totalitarianism.

I say this because the chapters on 9/11, and there were too many of them in my view, were slow and uncompelling. Once Keillor establishes his concern with the question, he examines what the Bible has to say regarding God's judgments in history. Here, the book picks up some steam. He argues that the covenantal context of the Old Testament does not allow us to flatly translate God's judgments from the OT era to the new. But there is another danger for we modern readers. In one of the best quotes in the book, Keillor warns:

"We should not read back into the Old Testament our American idea of judgment. We picture a passive, impartial, professional jurist independent of executive and legislative branches, who decides cases that others bring into court according to laws the legislature has passed (the verdict vindicates the law and maintains order more than it redresses wrongs against victims), relies on the executive to enforce the verdict, and corrects the other two branches' errors. We picture the state prosecuting a defendant, except in civil cases. We may regard the state as overbearing and sympathize with the underdog on trial or the John Dillinger who avoids capture and trial. In general, we tend to be reductionist: we exclude entire realms such as foreign policy from the realm of justice; 'justice' may mean only procedural fairness, verdicts may be based on narrow individual rights, with the broader social outcome and others' interests ignored.

These notions carry over into our idea of divine judgment. We picture a distant, passive God who suddenly acts where he had never acted before when we did such and such. Our surprise means he is unfair. His overwhelming power means he is unfair. The tragic event we see as unfair: the law and its penalty were unclear; there were no victims hurt by our sin; God never heard our rationalizing explanation, is not impartial, judges in his own case as the aggrieved lawmaker and complainant and acts as prosecutor, jury and sentencing magistrate." p. 65

Keillor examines the New Testament for instruction on God's judgment. Keillor rightly argues that Jesus' incarnation was itself a kind of judgment, as light exposes darkness, Jesus could not but be a judgment upon his listeners. He shows that Jesus' parables were a judgment, and as Joel McDurmon shows in "Jesus Versus Jerusalem", Jesus' parables and teachings were largely building a case for judgment, and consequently covenantal divorce from apostate Israel. Keillor is never so explicit or forceful as McDurmon, but there is a clear kinship in the argument here. Keillor makes his case that, yes, God does continue judging mankind in history, rather than only storing up judgment for final judgment.

So if, as Keillor argues, God does continue his judgments in history, what does that mean for us today? He writes on two specific events in American history to show how we ought to understand God's judgments in history. The first event is the British burning of Washington in 1814. The second is the Civil War.

Keillor shows how from the very beginning of America, slavery was a source of contention and testing. At nearly every point, Americans failed the test of righteousness in handling the slavery question. The Constitution's ambiguity and moral compromise delayed making a final judgment on the slavery question. Eventually, the division forced the issue to be resolved by the violence of Civil War.

I'd been concerned how Keillor would interpret the Civil War in light of a comment made early in the book, but he is quite fair. Keillor sees plenty of blame for both sides, and rightly, of course, sees greater blame on the side of the South.

In one of the finer quotes of the book, Keillor connects the hardening of hearts to our own past, and writes:

"As tactics, the Garrisonians' [radical abolitionists] ideas alienated most everyone and served as self-judgments cutting them off from society. Yet their ideas had a huge impact. They offended Southerners into open, strident defenses of slavery'thus hardening the South. Scripture teaches that God acts to harden sinners who refuse to repent. Southerners refused Whitefield's words and evangelicals' calls in the 1790s'even threatening anti-slavery preachers with violence'so God sent a message as judgment, as hardening, not as a means to repentance." p. 139-140

This dual purpose of calls for repentance are very frightening--the spiritual danger of rejecting God's warnings leave us liable to even greater judgment.

Overall the book was helpful and I applaud Keillor for making such formal inquiries into studying history in light of God's judgments. My first, and perhaps greatest criticism of the book is his incessant criticism of Christian worldview thinking.

Very early on, Keillor writes that he's not encountered any Christian worldview literature that ever speaks of God's judgments. He mentions only a few works. Does he not consider works by Francis Schaeffer to be "worldview" books? "Idols For Destruction" is a bit of a classic, which I would consider in the "worldview" genre. Schlossberg is the one who introduced and cemented the idea of God's continued judging of the nations for me. Has he really never read it?

But moving on, he argues that worldview thinking, by its very nature, is unable to grapple with the question of God's judgment. He argues that worldview, or "weltanschauung" is an Enlightenment idea, and inoculated against God's active judgment in history. Keillor's critique here is rather vague, but he seems to believe worldview is an inherently personal, human perspective, not the kind of meta narrative, from with God at the foundation, that he demands. I fail to see why worldview thinking can only be personal, rather than having God as its source. This critique of worldview thinking is unnecessary, poorly reasoned, and confusing.

And my final criticism is, what of the reconstructionists? They were profoundly influenced by Van Til's epistemology and philosophy of antithesis and presuppositional apologetics, which Keillor would seemingly resonate with; yet Keillor never mentions the movement, despite their proclivity to think the way Keillor desires. The reconstructionlist literature, agree with them or not, is chock full of the notion that God continues his judgment upon the nations today. It is in fact, their primary mode of thought! He completely ignores them, and then argues that no one thinks this way. At least acknowledge their existence, even if you disagree with them. Maybe even interact with them in a constructive manner.

These critiques are nitpicking, really. It is a helpful book, and I appreciated his efforts to remind us all, that God is not simply awaiting the final day of judgment to set things right in the world, but he does continue to bring his righteousness to bear upon his creation.