Olson's article on the state of modern theology pretty much repeats what we have been voicing here for the past several years. That it is the job of postmodern theology to reinterpret Scripture and to bring our Christian understanding of its content in line with, and re-integrated to, today's sciences. To let go of the church's many past millennia's of out-dated, pre-scientific, biblical interpretations, and at the last begin questioning ourselves, our traditions, our orthodoxies, and dogmas, with the hard truths of postmodern discoveries. Its deconstructions and reconstructions. Its harsh glare of our antipathies and quizzical stares of incredulity.
The modernistic church has been obfuscating the lines and demarcations of theology for far too long and must now "pay the piper" his due to the bewilderment and stupefying of its congregations and society-at-large. It is time to declare that what we think we know as Christians must be re-examined in the cold, cruel light of scientific facts against our errant religious fictions which have so pleasantly entertained, amazed, and comforted us. When in fact the church continues to promulgate its own ruin and destruction by maintaining its religious idols of who God is, who we are, and what this world is. Christianity has become more-or-less a man-made religion rather than a godly faith broken upon the altars of its mirrorless self.
However, to act bravely, even self-critically, would be salvation itself against the bankruptcy of the Christian faith caught out along the lines of spiritual mysticism and magic, fanciful ideologies, and the squalor of human ignorance lying-everywhere-about its sacred, gilded pages of church doctrine and legalistic pride. Certainly it can be done reasonably, and without lost of God, sin, grace, and salvation. But let us be all the more certain that it must be done rather than not at all. Nor refused. Nor dis-allowed for fear of blasphemy. For the only blasphemy occurring at this point is the blasphemy of not understanding our Lord's revelation by being content upon the baseless fictions and fantasies we cry so assuredly about in our ignorance and zeal of Scripture's pages. If we're going to declare God's Word than let us do so without first declaring our lines and boundaries in which to do such a task. Otherwise we coddle ourselves and unnecessarily protect our beliefs which, if true, should need no protection at all.
It is not for naught that so many weary theologians have turned to postmodernism's critical thinking to rediscover the guiding truths of Scripture lost in the myriad unenlightening fictions of folklore religion loudly proclaiming misleading theological declarations by our brightest and best pulpiteers of recent years. The most golden voices, and stentorian speeches, so gladden our tin-leaden ears in its cacophonous man-made noise as to mislead from the hallowed truths of Scripture's subtler testimony attested to by the myriads of scientific disciplines and academic minds. And should such a preacher or theolog be so bold as to say, "Nay, but look here against your certainties," then one-and-all seeks that preacher's, or theolog's, rapid dismissal from the ranks of Christendom by pax and anathema.
The modernistic church has been obfuscating the lines and demarcations of theology for far too long and must now "pay the piper" his due to the bewilderment and stupefying of its congregations and society-at-large. It is time to declare that what we think we know as Christians must be re-examined in the cold, cruel light of scientific facts against our errant religious fictions which have so pleasantly entertained, amazed, and comforted us. When in fact the church continues to promulgate its own ruin and destruction by maintaining its religious idols of who God is, who we are, and what this world is. Christianity has become more-or-less a man-made religion rather than a godly faith broken upon the altars of its mirrorless self.
However, to act bravely, even self-critically, would be salvation itself against the bankruptcy of the Christian faith caught out along the lines of spiritual mysticism and magic, fanciful ideologies, and the squalor of human ignorance lying-everywhere-about its sacred, gilded pages of church doctrine and legalistic pride. Certainly it can be done reasonably, and without lost of God, sin, grace, and salvation. But let us be all the more certain that it must be done rather than not at all. Nor refused. Nor dis-allowed for fear of blasphemy. For the only blasphemy occurring at this point is the blasphemy of not understanding our Lord's revelation by being content upon the baseless fictions and fantasies we cry so assuredly about in our ignorance and zeal of Scripture's pages. If we're going to declare God's Word than let us do so without first declaring our lines and boundaries in which to do such a task. Otherwise we coddle ourselves and unnecessarily protect our beliefs which, if true, should need no protection at all.
It is not for naught that so many weary theologians have turned to postmodernism's critical thinking to rediscover the guiding truths of Scripture lost in the myriad unenlightening fictions of folklore religion loudly proclaiming misleading theological declarations by our brightest and best pulpiteers of recent years. The most golden voices, and stentorian speeches, so gladden our tin-leaden ears in its cacophonous man-made noise as to mislead from the hallowed truths of Scripture's subtler testimony attested to by the myriads of scientific disciplines and academic minds. And should such a preacher or theolog be so bold as to say, "Nay, but look here against your certainties," then one-and-all seeks that preacher's, or theolog's, rapid dismissal from the ranks of Christendom by pax and anathema.
Woe be to such a generation of vapid prophets whose vaporous flocks flee to their own wisdoms and falsehoods misunderstanding the hand of God in these surer times demanding relevancy, insight, and connectedness. Surely such self-ordained false prophets guide the flocks of God to their own valleys of the shadow of death declaring good bad, and bad good, all for the sake of maintaining unreflective church traditions and dogmas for their name's sake. Nay, let us be rid of such miscreants and learn to look again to those we hitherto decried so easily. To hear again the words of Jesus lost in the political scandals and derelict policies of a non-Christian ethos we have proclaimed in the name of God... so certain we have been of our own non-reflective, uncritical biases. It would be better that we tear down our own religious idols of mammon and greed than to stand against the Lord and declare His revelation bankrupted by our own private interpretations. Since when do the words of religious men resist his Maker? Or stand against his Redeemer's blood-bought world? Or seek to tear down brothers and sisters testifying of the Lord's beauty?
Today's postmodern generations can do better than this. Especially when we look at the cruelty and sufferings of man so abundant about us; committed against each other - and upon this good earth - all in the name of faith and religion, by both Christian and non-Christian alike. Man-made religion but protects our greed and pride without protecting the rights and liberties of those we so easily oppress without thought or regard. But true Christianity is selfless. Sacrificial. Service-oriented. It looks outwards towards others in its upward gaze to the God above who is present within our midst. And it looks away from ourselves, our petty needs and pleasures, our need for certainty and security, our private lusts and hatreds, jealousies and self-absorptions. If not, than the Christian faith is useless and become but an empty banner of patriotic zeal and nationalism wrapped in a religious blanket of Christianized humanism. A pantry of evils best walked away from and uneaten lest its worm continues to rot both gut and head, heart and soul.
So then, what say you on this Veteran's Day set to honor the lost and the dead, the living and the oppressed, of all nations? For what truths did they die if not for peace, righteousness, hope, and salvation of the dispossessed and ruined? Even so must we humbly turn to our Lord and say, "Forgive us, Lord, and help us to hear your Word again with ears and hearts that are opened to your Spirit's counsel and guidance. To show tolerance and wisdom in listening to our enemies and protagonists everywhere about, shaking their fists at our God and Bible." They have their arguments, and it would be best to listen again lest we miss God's voice in the rumble of our own words with its accompanying clouds of delusion and apostasy. The Christian faith is a humble faith. Meek, and meekly led, by the Christ-of-the-Cross, who is our only sure Hope-of-contrite renewal and repentant resurrection. Let this humility guide us even now within this frail life that we mercifully possess onto the Lord's surer counsels which at present seem to speak from without - since they no long seem to come from within - our self-annointed, fracturous, faith and its congregations. Amen and Amen.
Today's postmodern generations can do better than this. Especially when we look at the cruelty and sufferings of man so abundant about us; committed against each other - and upon this good earth - all in the name of faith and religion, by both Christian and non-Christian alike. Man-made religion but protects our greed and pride without protecting the rights and liberties of those we so easily oppress without thought or regard. But true Christianity is selfless. Sacrificial. Service-oriented. It looks outwards towards others in its upward gaze to the God above who is present within our midst. And it looks away from ourselves, our petty needs and pleasures, our need for certainty and security, our private lusts and hatreds, jealousies and self-absorptions. If not, than the Christian faith is useless and become but an empty banner of patriotic zeal and nationalism wrapped in a religious blanket of Christianized humanism. A pantry of evils best walked away from and uneaten lest its worm continues to rot both gut and head, heart and soul.
So then, what say you on this Veteran's Day set to honor the lost and the dead, the living and the oppressed, of all nations? For what truths did they die if not for peace, righteousness, hope, and salvation of the dispossessed and ruined? Even so must we humbly turn to our Lord and say, "Forgive us, Lord, and help us to hear your Word again with ears and hearts that are opened to your Spirit's counsel and guidance. To show tolerance and wisdom in listening to our enemies and protagonists everywhere about, shaking their fists at our God and Bible." They have their arguments, and it would be best to listen again lest we miss God's voice in the rumble of our own words with its accompanying clouds of delusion and apostasy. The Christian faith is a humble faith. Meek, and meekly led, by the Christ-of-the-Cross, who is our only sure Hope-of-contrite renewal and repentant resurrection. Let this humility guide us even now within this frail life that we mercifully possess onto the Lord's surer counsels which at present seem to speak from without - since they no long seem to come from within - our self-annointed, fracturous, faith and its congregations. Amen and Amen.
R.E. Slater
November 11, 2013
* * * * * * * * *
Christianity and Science: How They Relate to Each Other in Modern Theology
by Roger Olson
November 9, 2013
The unifying theme of my newly published book The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction (IVP) is Christian theological responses and reactions to modernity. Modernity is, of course, that cultural ethos stemming from the Enlightenment and the scientific revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries especially. (One could extend the era of modernity’s cultural dominance in the West into the twentieth century.) Toward the end of the book, beginning with the chapter on liberation theologies, I discuss postmodernity, but, of course, postmodernity, whatever else it may be, is a response and reaction to modernity.
My study of modern theology, from the deists (Toland, Tindale, et al.) to deconstructionists (my case study is John Caputo), led me to believe that much of it is driven by desire to extricate Christianity from conflicts with “the sciences” (broadly defined, not just the so-called “physical science”). The book begins with the “Galileo affair” which, I believe, still haunts thinking Christians. Both the majorities of Protestants and Catholics rejected Galileo’s discoveries in astronomy (as they had ridiculed and rejected Copernicus’s before him). And yet, in the end, he proved his heliocentric universe idea to be true so convincingly that everyone had to agree. The Catholic Church leaders of his time knew he was right, but wanted to suppress his discovery. His persecution by the church was for not obeying its order not to publish his proof.
Other scientists discovered facts and promulgated theories that conflicted with traditional Christian reliance on Aristotle, and a non-scientific cosmology based on misinterpretation of the Bible. For at least two centuries it seemed that in every conflict between “science and Scripture” or “science and theology” Scripture and theology lost to science. This added up to a humiliation for orthodox theology (as it was understood then) and the established churches. Two extreme reactions set in among Christians. One was to reject everything science says. “Science” became the sphere of evil and deception. The other, opposite, extreme was to accept whatever seemed to be the prevailing scientific mood and theory at any given time and totally capitulate to it, trimming Christianity down to an “essence” that could not conflict with science.
But many Christians worked in the middle ground between those extremes. Galileo himself carved out a compromise approach in his “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina” (of Tuscany). According to him, theology reigns in matters of salvation whereas science reigns in matters of physical reality. The approach was something like “Christianity is not about how the heavens go but how to go to heaven.” That’s oversimplifying, of course, but it pretty well describes his general method of handling conflicts between traditional Christianity and science. To be more precise, Galileo denied any errors in Scripture but said that whenever science proves something that seems to conflict with Scripture, theology must reinterpret Scripture. Twentieth century evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm took this approach in his classic The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954). Between Galileo and Ramm, Charles Hodge advocated much the same approach in his Systematic Theology (1872/1873). Of course, neither Hodge nor Ramm advocated adjusting theology to every theory of scientists. Ramm stated that traditional biblical interpretation should accommodate only to the “material facts” of science—what has been proven beyond serious doubt.
It seems to me (and I have described this in Journey) many modern Christian theologians have adopted a different approach than Galileo’s, Hodge’s or Ramm’s. Much modern theology seems to be intent on rescuing Christianity from conflicts with science, where theology usually loses, by redefining “Christianity” such that it cannot conflict with science. Wolfhart Pannenberg fought against this “ghettoizing” of theology and spent much of his later career attempting to establish dialogue between science and theology with an eye toward re-integration of the two. His goal was mutual transformation of science and theology, not capitulation of theology to science or antagonism between them.
However, from Friedrich Schleiermacher on, the general “drift” of modern theology was to separate Christianity from science so that conflict is impossible. If Schleiermacher is right, if Albrecht Ritschl is right, if Rudolf Bultmann is right, if Paul Tillich is right (and one could name many more), Christianity’s “true essence” has nothing to do with what science studies, so conflict between them is impossible. Christianity’s true essence came to be seen as either “God-consciousness" (Schleiermacher) or ethics (Ritschl) or “authentic existence” (Bultmann) or “ultimate concern with Being Itself” (Tillich). Many other modern theologians, in their own ways, attempted to reinterpret Christianity so that it could not be undermined by science.
But, according to Pannenberg and others, all this came at great cost. For one thing, it helped fuel the “Atheismusstreit” (the atheism struggle”) in the European universities. Especially, but not only, atheists wanted theology expelled from the universities as it was considered not a science at all. (It is usually taught as one of the human sciences.) It also, Pannenberg argued, reduced theology’s voice to irrelevance in the “public square,” the market place of ideas, making it esoteric.
One serious problem with these many theological attempts to rescue Christianity from “the acids of modernity” (Walter Lippman’s phrase) and especially science by subjectivizing it (using Romanticism or existentialism, etc.) was that science kept expanding its territory to include the human subject and his or her consciousness. Schleiermacher did not foresee Freud. Tillich struggled with depth psychology, attempting to integrate it with theology and vice versa, without much success. Sociobiology appeared on the scene to argue that religion itself is an adaptive behavior. In other words, redefining Christianity to avoid conflicts with science while retaining any reliance on “God of the gaps” thinking does not seem to work. Science seems intent on closing all the gaps—even subjective consciousness and self-understanding.
This is the pathos of modern theology—how to avoid repetitions of the Galileo affair.
One wrong approach is to trim “Christianity” to fit whatever “science” seems to be saying. This is the accommodationist approach. It appears in all versions of “naturalistic theisms” including process theologies. As one pundit put it, theology was so afraid of being kicked into the ditch by modernity that it jumped there to avoid the pain of being kicked.”
Another wrong approach is to resist science to the point of rejecting even its material facts. Most conservative Christians have long accepted the truth of the heliocentric system and that the earth is round so that heaven is not “up.” (Although I once heard a Christian evangelist argue that heaven is truly “up”—from the north pole because all maps show that as “up” from anywhere on the planet.) But many Christians seem simply to want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore science (if not demonize it)—except for its technological creations (e.g., cancer treatments).
A very common wrong approach, however, is to redefine “Christianity” so that its “essence” cannot be undermined or supported by science. Theology and science exist in water tight, separate compartments. This results in theology’s irrelevance to public truth and its reduction to an esoteric “science.”
Finally, some Christians wrongly take the “two truths” approach. For them, scientific facts can contradict Christian beliefs but somehow both are to be embraced.
Probably no single issue has caused as much consternation and confusion and loss of credibility for theology as its various approaches to science.
For now, anyway, I hold to the common sense approach of Hodge and Ramm. It’s not that Christianity is only about “how to go to heaven” and not at all about “how the heavens go.” Christian theology needs to have a cosmology informed by the best science. However, theology need not adapt to every passing theory of scientists. But when something is established as material fact beyond a reasonable doubt theology must accept it and adjust to it. An example, more recent than Galileo, is the age of the earth. Only people who refuse to face material facts still think Bishop Ussher’s dating of the creation is even close to correct.
Recently even some orthodox Christians, evangelicals among them, have sought a “non-interventionist” view of God’s providence [(sic, the sovereignty of God)]. I would dare to say that this is quickly becoming a major trend among even moderate theologians. (To be sure, not all are seeking this, but more are than make me comfortable.) The whole concept of “miracle” is becoming problematic, even among theologians who adamantly deny being “liberal.” They do not deny “acts of God,” they simply do not think they include anything like “interventions” in nature or history which are ruled by laws. God acts, they say, through natural laws which are under his control.
The question this raises, of course, is the resurrection of Jesus. How does one express the bodily resurrection (which many of these non-interventionist theologians affirm) in non-interventionist terms?
One of my questions for non-interventionist theologians (and here I’m talking only about those who still believe God acts in nature and history outside the individual’s consciousness) is how did God bring about the resurrection of Jesus Christ “non-interventionally?” What model of “act of God” can be called non-interventionist while still affirming the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Now, if someone says, well, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead bodily, my response is “Here I’m not talking to you or about you.” What I’m seeking to know is how an orthodox Christian, one who believes in God’s providential activity in the world, including (even if only) the bodily resurrection of Jesus, can explain the miracle of the resurrection non-interventionally.
For now, anyway, I still do not see any conflict between believing God sometimes intervenes in nature and history with genuine miracles and belief that normally nature is uniform. Scientists studying nature should practice methodological atheism, but I don’t see how believing in the normal uniformity of nature (everything we normally observe has a natural cause) excludes miracles if God is conceived as omnipotent—”big enough” to “fix” whatever problems an intervention might normally cause in the universe.
- Roger Olson
-----
*Lest Dr. Olson be misunderstood, he does in fact believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the incarnate God, even as I do (cf, the sidebar under "Virgin Birth"). What he wishes to know is how God can, and will, "intervene" in this world without breaking his own primodial counsels when decreeing creation's evolutionary existence (sic, think Stephen Hawking's statements of creation not needing its God once set in motion; against the Christian understanding that one-and-all needs God's very breath to move forward). In an evolutionary understanding of Scriptures what then does this mean? How then may God "intervene" without breaking His earlier decrees? Even so have we made a few attempts in the science and sovereignty sections of this website. But for now, I would suggest some further research along the lines of the univocity of God, and especially in the area of "essential kenosis and freewill theism" in a more recent article lately posted - How Does God Move and Act in the Universe? - "Eight Positions of Divine Sovereignty."
And lest anyone gets the wrong idea, this website does indeed intend to continue its research and investigations into process theology by comparing its insights in combination with relational theism and open theology. As well as to further understand the continental philosophies of existentialism, phenomenology, and even radical theology (which is an even more radical form to that of liberal theology). As thinking Christians we should know and understand what we are talking about rather than avoiding (or decrying) every "-ism" that comes our way. Know your subject. Take what you can. And learn from it. Every area has something to say. Even atheism. For instance, I think its contrasts gives support to theistic structure making itself in the process unsupportable.... But you wouldn't know that if you don't know the subject (John Caputo: Towards a Radical Theology, Not a Radical Atheism: A Review of Modern Atheism, Atheology, and Divine Inexistence) or the many reasons for its attractiveness (sic, Peter Rollins commentaries)
The trick is to not get lost. Too many have begun pure-in-heart only to lose their way in the dark wildernesses of man-made religion or wisdom (sic, both within the church's own dogmas as well as without its walls and indoctrinations). Those few of us who have found good counsel along our heavy roads of doubt and uncertainty are the more fortunate for the Lord's kindly grace. For this was my own testimony when breaking past the borderlands of my own churched Christianity to the broader lands of a Jesus-centric faith fraught against the religious legalisms so readily at hand (ever the seeker's temptation and unwanted foundling). But thanks be to the Lord for Christ His Son, ever my Guide and Savior. At the last, my definition of Christianity is a simple one. It is Jesus. Only Jesus. And all of Jesus. Around Him must the Christian faith and its hope most assuredly revolve. He is our best Shepherd, Guide, and Counselor. The God of all creation. Who is the Alpha and Omega of our faith. Not its rules. Not its styles and preferences. Not its alarmisms and protestations. Nor its religious lifestyles and presumed rags of self-righteousness without blood or stain of our Savior and Lord. Our faith must be in Jesus alone. He is our Amen and Verity. Forever and ever. Amen and Amen.
- R.E. Slater
----
My Note to Dr. Olson:
"Not sure where to begin... for myself I began with Lippman's idea of rescuing Christianity from the "acids of modernity" and its secularity... which has since led me to a form of postmodern, post-evangelic, expression of theology. Mostly holding to its evangelic roots but more willing to now examine them under the outside scopes of non-evangelic thought. I continue to investigate process theology both thru the lens of relational theism and open theology; to think that continental philosophy can be helpful where reasonably applied; and even that radical theology has a thing or two to say about our apocalyptic faith, the weakness of God, and doubt and faith. Science is much less problematic for me as I was trained in it from both the physical and socio-biological streams of thought, and quite enjoy working it back into theological discussion.
Overall I am determined that postmodern theology (or its succeeding forms) must re-interpret the Bible in order to restore it back to the mainstreams of thought and life. However, short of this monumental effort, it seems to me that the one good reason for the Lord to return is that He must. If I were to neglect the many good men and women that He has used over the past 2000 years of church history, this age has been barren of its OT-like prophets, priests, and kings... 2000 years has been a long time for God to not intervene... however this "divine silence" does perfectly fit in with the realization that He has died, and has quite literally left in His place His many servants to speak His good word by His prevailing Spirit. Even so, my brother, continue to declare God's Word.
- Russ
- R.E. Slater
----
My Note to Dr. Olson:
"Not sure where to begin... for myself I began with Lippman's idea of rescuing Christianity from the "acids of modernity" and its secularity... which has since led me to a form of postmodern, post-evangelic, expression of theology. Mostly holding to its evangelic roots but more willing to now examine them under the outside scopes of non-evangelic thought. I continue to investigate process theology both thru the lens of relational theism and open theology; to think that continental philosophy can be helpful where reasonably applied; and even that radical theology has a thing or two to say about our apocalyptic faith, the weakness of God, and doubt and faith. Science is much less problematic for me as I was trained in it from both the physical and socio-biological streams of thought, and quite enjoy working it back into theological discussion.
Overall I am determined that postmodern theology (or its succeeding forms) must re-interpret the Bible in order to restore it back to the mainstreams of thought and life. However, short of this monumental effort, it seems to me that the one good reason for the Lord to return is that He must. If I were to neglect the many good men and women that He has used over the past 2000 years of church history, this age has been barren of its OT-like prophets, priests, and kings... 2000 years has been a long time for God to not intervene... however this "divine silence" does perfectly fit in with the realization that He has died, and has quite literally left in His place His many servants to speak His good word by His prevailing Spirit. Even so, my brother, continue to declare God's Word.
- Russ
continue to -
