The problem of evil is a significant defeater for old earth creation views. On the classical view, all creation fell with the fall of man, and Adam’s fall introduced natural evil into the world. It does not seem that Ortlund disputes this to be the classical view. All of the advocates for his view—that the angelic fall introduced natural evil into the world—are moderns: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Thomas Torrance, and Alvin Plantinga. In his 2015 Evangelical Quarterly article Ortlund traces this idea back to 1876 and George Pember.
In closing this article, Ortlund comments, “I have observed it to be a nearly universal rule that those who scoff at angelic fall theodicy tend to be less familiar with Tolkien, while those who take it seriously tend to read him quite closely” (338). I hope that I don’t simply scoff at Ortlund’s position. But this close reader of Tolkien does not find the angelical fall theodicy convincing. The Simarillion is an engaging piece of fiction, and I have found “The Music of the Ainur” fascinating since I first read it in high school. Nonetheless, it is fiction.
Ortlund addresses this objection by noting that Tolkien conveyed true theological beliefs in his fiction and that some of these beliefs can be found in Augustine and Aquinas. There is value in looking at historic Christian thought. But historical theology needs always to be accompanied by exegetical reflection. It is not enough to know that Augustine and Aquinas believed something. That is only the first stage. The interpreter must then ask if those beliefs can be substantiated from Scripture. In addition, it is worth noting that Calvin found the medieval views of angels overly speculative (Institutes 1.14.4-12).
Ortlund’s goal in this article is not to make a case from Scripture but to make his view plausible by pointing to three historical figures who held views of angelic agency in creation that would be necessary for his view to work. However, I find these precursors to his view (e.g., that the angels participated in creation and are given oversight over it) overly speculative. Not only is the angelic fall theodicy overly speculative, but it is so in ways that run against explicit scriptural teaching. Genesis 3:17 reveals when the ground was cursed: in Adam’s fall, not in an angelic fall. Romans 8 links the groaning and redemption of creation with the fall and redemption of man. Why does creation fall with man, and why is it restored with man? Because in Genesis 1:28 God made man, who bears his image, ruler over creation under him. This partially accounts for the incarnation and for why the kingdom of God arrived with the incarnate Son. The kingdom of God is not merely the reign of God. That never ceased. The kingdom of God that John and Jesus announced as being at hand was the reign of God through an obedient man.
It may be fun to speculate in fiction about the angels singing creation into existence, as Tolkien does, or to imagine with Lewis that different angelic beings each have their own planet to rule. But to bring these fictions into theology is to destabilize the biblical Creation-Fall-Redemption narrative with the central place given to man—especially the Man—in it.
Leave a Reply