Review
======
Title: Irenaeus, Joseph Smith, and God-Making Heresy
Author: Adam J. Powell
Publisher: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press
Genre: Sociology of Religion
Year Published: 2015
Number of Pages: 267
Binding: Hardback
ISBN10: 1611478715
ISBN13: 978-1611478716
Price: $85.00
Reviewed by Carl J. Cranney for the Association for Mormon Letters
Adam J. Powell begins with a basic assertion: that theological developments are largely the result of forces outside of theology. With that axiom, he weaves together quite well a comparison of two disparate groups, separated by centuries, who nevertheless came to startlingly similar theological conclusions–the early Christian bishop Irenaeus, and the nascent Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their similarities are obvious from the theological one-liners summing up their positions on man’s potential for deification. From Irenaeus, Christ came “in order to make us what he is,” and from early LDS church leader Lorenzo Snow, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” The question Powell raises is whether or not such theological similarities can be explained by the social circumstances in which Irenaeus and Joseph Smith operated. He thinks they can. I have my doubts, even after reading his well-constructed argument.
I am wary of one field of study, in this case the Sociology of Religion, declaring that it has overtaken completely another field, in this case Theology (my own field, to which I am of course biased). However, Powell’s analysis is persuasive enough that it does warrant careful consideration. Though the book is slightly unbalanced in favor of describing his methodology before moving on to the actual project, the project becomes much more clear once he begins to analyze similarities and differences in the social, religious, and personal milieu that both Irenaeus and Joseph Smith found themselves in.
Powell does an admirable job of articulating many striking similarities surrounding the formation of early Christianity, as represented by Irenaeus, and the formation of early Mormonism. Those similarities are compelling, and well-worth examining. A quick example will be instructive. Early Christians were seen as subversive to the social order because of their failure to participate in the imperial cult and related ritual activity. Early Mormons were seen as subversive to the social order because of their failure to appropriately respect the individualism inherent in the emerging American civil religion.
Both groups, then, were subversive to the social order for reasons completely unrelated to their particular theologies of deification. Powell brings up enough similar points of contact that he proves his point that Mormonism and early Christianity are analogous enough to each other in societal circumstance.
Where I think the book fails is in its assertion, occasionally with caveats, occasionally not, that a particular set of circumstances will lead to the development a specific theology, in this case particular types of tension with society leading to a specific theology of deification. Powell seems of two minds on this point, in some instances asserting a thought akin to “certain experiences are involved in a dialectical relationship with certain beliefs” (4), and in other instances saying something like “deification is not the only (or the necessary) response of all religious groups to overt opposition” (193). The first statement has no caveat, the second does.
The book is much stronger when he realizes that perhaps he has cherry-picked two similar theologies and then tried to force their sociological underpinnings together. Though my initial reaction was to think that he had merely cherry-picked the two strongest deification advocates in the Christian world (some Eastern Orthodox perhaps being a close third), in the end his analysis of the milieu in which those advocates operated was compelling enough that my initial reaction was easily called into question.
Still, his argument comes across better when he acknowledges its possible weaknesses. I also found it slightly improper to reduce “early Christianity” to “Irenaeus.” Other early Christians faced much the same circumstances, yet did not assert a doctrine of deification as Irenaeus did.
Powell concludes his book with a call for further analysis of the sociology of religion on the development of theology(ies), and in that we are in agreement. Analysis of more data points than Irenaeus and Joseph Smith, and the circumstances in which they operated, will help us determine if indeed social circumstances drive theology to the extent that he asserts. I still harbor quite strong suspicions that it does not (though of course acknowledging that theology does not exist in a vacuum), but his analysis of this narrow example was compelling enough that I would be pleasantly surprised to have my suspicions proven wrong.
Written primarily for those interested in the sociology of religion, possibly for those interested in theology, the majority of the book is too technical for the lay reader, who will easily get lost in the (perhaps overly) detailed review of the previous literature. I believe that sociologists of religion will find this book of value. I suspect that those trained in theology will come away with my same doubts about it, but that most everybody will get some insight into how theology might sometimes be affected by social milieu.