34 / CHRONICLESndeath they find in Scripture. For them,nthe sacraments, as important as theynare, do not have salvific value, butnrather fiinction as a means of sanctifyingngrace for those — and only fornthose — who respond in Christiannfaith. Molnar finds this view “impersonal,nreified, and alienating” for thenchurch. He thinks that rejecting transubstantiationnconsigns worshipers tonthe mere phenomena of the signsnwhich are interpreted subjectively andnso divorced from the actual objectivenreality (or being) of the sacrificial eventnitself. But the Protestant could replynthat the sign helps worshipers subjectivelyncommemorate a unique, objective,nand unrepeatable historical eventnof supreme importance. Worshipersnare instructed to respond properly innlight of the reality being commemorated.nJust how this is “impersonal, reified,nand alienating” seems unclear.nMolnar’s critic could further respondnthat his own view comes close tonviewing the Lord’s Supper as a magicalnrite in which an elixir is dispensednwhich is automatically efficacious to allninvolved, irrespective of the subjectivenstate of the recipient. It could also benadded that Molnar’s notion of relivingnthe sacred event, rather than commemoratingnit, borders on the cyclical viewnof history embraced by the very paganismnhe rejects. (Molnar himself quotesnAugustine’s refutation of the cyclicalnview: “God forbid that we should swallownsuch nonsense. Christ died, oncenfor all, for our sins.”)nQuestions should also be raised regardingnMolnar’s understanding ofn”myth.” He does affirm that then”mythic” need not be factually false.nHe rightly sees the Christian drama ofnredemption as “mythic” sirtce it answersna deep primordial need and addressesnand answers — through revelation—nthe universal concern ofncreation, fall, and redemption. To borrowna phrase from C.S. Lewis, thenChristian story is “myth become fact,”nor, as G.K. Chesterton put it, Christianitynis “an answer to a riddle.”nYet Molnar believes that the Biblencontains some factually false mythicalnmaterial: “All things considered, thengreat difference between pagan mythsnand the Gospels is that most of thenlatter’s stories are historically factual,nand mythical elements touch only theninessentials.” This reminds me of whatnPeter Berger calls “cognitive bartering”nin which orthodoxy barters with modernitynfor the supernatural elements itnmay retain: “We’ll give up the virginnbirth, if we can keep the resurrection.”nAlthough this is not Molnar’s aim, tonadmit any mythical accretions is tonbegin to undermine all historical authenticity.nWe cannot edit holy writnaccording to the whims of modernnspeculation and hope to escape unscathedn(a point Molnar himself makesnin reference to the truncated theologynof Hans Kung). Moreover, there wasninsufficient time between the historicalnevents and their commemoration innthe Gospels for mythical accretions tondevelop.nVery importantly. The Pagan Temptationnis a valuable resource for puttingnvarious forms of neopaganism and newnoccultism (which often go under thenname of the New Age movement) intonbetter perspective. Neopaganism is notna trifling fad but a perennial temptationnwith cultural force to transform thenWest. What is at stake is nothing lessnthan Western civilization as we knownit. Although some will find aspects ofnhis sacramentalism unconvincing,nMolnar calls us to discern just hownmodern Christianity itself may be contributingnto the pagan allure by neglectingna proper understanding of thenimaginative or mythic aspects of orthodoxy.nIf it is true, as Molnar believes, thatn”in the minds of vast segments of thenWest, the Christian God has died . . .nhis death is simultaneous with thenassumed ascent of humanity to divinenstatus,” we then face a challenge of thenhighest order.nDouglas Groothuis is a researchnassociate with Probe Center Northwestnand author of Unmasking the NewnAge and Confronting the New Agen(InterVarsity).nGalileo Brought tonBook, Againnby Bryce J. ChristensennGalileo: Heretic by PietronRedondi, Princeton: PrincetonnUniversity Press; $29.95.nGalileo Galilei lives in the imaginationnof every high-school atheist as the ar­nnnchetypal champion of Truth, standingnheroically against the malice and superstitionnof the ecclesiastical authoritiesnwho condemned him. This version ofnthe events works wonderfully as melodramanbut fails miserably as history—nthe Italian scholar Pietro Redondi hasnuncovered documentary evidence thatnGalileo’s astronomy was not the principalnreason that Ghurch authoritiesnbrought him to trial. Rather, the real butnhidden issue lay in the impossibility ofnreconciling Galileo’s materialist philosophynwith the Catholic theology of thenEucharist.nWhy then was Galileo tried for hisnviews on the earth’s movement? In anpainstaking work of historical sleuthing,nRedondi traces the tangled motives ofnthe principals involved: Pope UrbannVIII, an early defender of Galileo whonlater came under attack from Spanishnclerics for alleged laxity in fighting heresy;nFather Grassi, the shrewd scientist,narchitect, and Jesuit who detected morenthan a whiff of heterodoxy in Galileo’snwritings; Cardinal Bellarmino, then”hammer of heretics” who officiallyninformed Galileo of the Church’s oppositionnto Copernicanism in 1616; FathernGuiducci, Galileo’s student and admirernwhose efforts to help his mentornbackfired; Cardinal Barberini, nephewnof the Pope, who personally stagemanagednGalileo’s trial; and Galileonhimself, who fanned the winds of controversynwith his intemperate polemics.nTop Church authorities genuinelynwished to avoid the public scandal ofnbringing Galileo to trial for advocatingndoctrines contrary to belief in transubstantiation.n(In 1624, just nine yearsnbefore Galileo’s trial, the Inquisitionnhad ordered the body of Mario AntonionDe Dominis exhumed and burned becausenof his advocacy of atomist principlesnvery much like Galileo’s.) Yet tonstill the damaging allegations and rumors,nChurch leaders felt it necessary tonpublicly discipline Galileo on the lessnserious—and therefore less scandalousn—charge of Copernicanism.nThe proud defiance of Galileo’snapocryphal “Eppur si muove!” (“It stOlnmoves!”) has sounded through the centuries.nBut the defiance loses its authenticitynwhen we learn that Galileo’s trialnwas the result of ecclesiastical plea bargainingndesigned to protect the Vaticannas well as the defendant. As Redondinexplains: “Since Galileo had been pro-n