(This is the final post of three on science and theology on the natural knowledge of God.)
What
is an appropriate theological appraise of John Calvin’s
sensus divinitatis? How does he see this sense of the divine? What
critique does he offer? And what is the proper place of the
sensus divinitatis for a scientifically
informed ecclesial theology?
|
John Calvin |
Calvin
continued his reflections on the
sensus
divinitatis by offering some caveats:
Though the
conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately
returns, and rushes in with a new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief
from the gnawings of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or
the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with
dire horrific dreams. Even the godless themselves, therefore, are an example of
the fact that some idea of God always
exists in every human mind. Institutes
1.3.2
The phrase “some idea of God” is
instructive—Calvin emphasizes that the sense of the divine is ephemeral and elusive;
he also writes that this
sensus
divinitatis is “fleeting and vain” (
Institute
1.3.3). This is not a sturdy foundation for faith. It is the general awareness
of a Supreme Being, God’s “eternal power and deity” which Paul describes in
Romans 1. Though universal and powerful, this general sense of God has a
remarkable malleability.
Along
with Michael Welker in Creation and
Reality, I argue that this sense
of the divine, however, remains powerful but problematic. Welker cites Job
19:6, 8, God “closed his net around me…. He has walled up my way so that I
cannot pass, and he has set darkness upon my paths.” This vague sense of deity
can even terrify. As Calvin writes,
The most
audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a
falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites
their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavor to flee from it.
They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves
from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after
all their efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may
occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in
with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of
conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have
no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams.
Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some
idea of God always exists in every human mind. Institutes 1.3.3
From this vague concept (“some idea
of God”) human beings can never distinguish between fears and fantasies and
true knowledge. They may continue to develop a neurotic piety: “Those
therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely worship and adore their own
delirious fancies”—a piety that leads into idolatry—“indeed, they would never
dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their
own childish conceits.” And later, “Even idolatry is ample evidence of this
conception.”
Calvin’s
language is characteristically strong and largely negative. (Calvin could never
be accused of an inflated view of human nature.) Nevertheless, building a
religious, or more contemporarily, “spiritual” practice from the sensus divinitatis has many of the
elements of idolatry in that it often leaves human beings exactly where they
started. As C. S. Lewis pointed out in an address to the Oxford Socratic
Society, this vague sense of the divine can be highly manipulated and is even
dangerous, pliable to all sorts of distortions. It cannot ultimately convert us
to the good. Lewis responding to another paper, “The Grounds of Modern
Agnosticism,” calls this a “minimal religion.” It leaves Nazis Nazis and
altruists altruists, now with a veneer of belief and an assurance that what
they already did is given divine endorsement. “The minimal religion will, in my
opinion, leave us all doing what we were doing before. We therefore need more
clarity for informed, and ultimately beneficial belief. It can be the basis of
nature-worship, built on a sense of numinous natural world. It can be a brash,
hedonistic worship of self, embodied in the basest forms of New Age
spirituality. Even the Nazi’s propagated an appreciation for what “God is doing
through the German Volk” and
supported it with the powerful, but vague feeling of the Numinous working to
renew the German civilization. It can also be named “transcendence” or
channeled in a variety of ways.
Here I
need to summarize: This sensus
divinitatis opens us to belief in God. Nonetheless, it is a vague awareness
that can neither prove God, nor can
it give us fully developed attributes of God. And the specific problems of the sensus divinitatis reveal the more
general weakness of natural theology. Nature gives us both stunning sunsets and
devastating hurricanes, fertile farmlands and wind-swept dustbowls, impressive
mountain peaks and deadly volcanoes. Nature’s supporting data present evidence
of two incompatible visions: the gracious, loving God and an angry, evil deity.
Pascal, who plumbed the depths of such natural proofs for God, grasped the
essential weakness of this approach.
I wonder at the
hardihood with which such persons undertake to talk about God. In a treatise
addressed to infidels they begin with a chapter proving the existence of God
from the works of Nature… this only gives their readers grounds for thinking
that the proofs of religion are very weak… It is a remarkable fact that no
canonical writer has ever used Nature to prove God.
This sensus divinitatis, though part of our creation, leaves us open for
God. It also, however, leaves human beings with a desire for clarity.
What
then are the purpose of nature and this natural awareness of divinity in
leading us to God? It is not a proof, but a witness,
a support for the God revealed in Jesus Christ. We need to fill in our natural
awareness of God with specificity. Only after we have heard God’s voice to us
in Jesus Christ, then we are able to
proclaim with the psalmist “the heavens are proclaiming the glory of God”
(Psalm 19:1). This is ultimately what Ian Barbour has termed, not a “natural
theology,” but a “theology of nature.” “Instead
of a natural theology, I advocate a theology of nature, which is based
primarily on religious experience and the life of the religious community but
which includes some reformulation of traditional doctrines in the light of
science. Theological doctrines start as human interpretations of individual and
communal experience and are therefore subject to revision. Our understanding of
God’s relation to nature always reflects our view of nature” (Religion and Science). We see the world
through our belief in a good Creator. Scripture, as Calvin concluded, becomes
the “spectacles” by which we view the world.
Science
acts in some ways, in describing this sensus
divinitatis, to offer general revelation. Through general revelation, we
can certainly find out truths about God, but those truths receive clarity
through God’s special revelation in history, especially depicted in the pages
of the Bible. For example, we can find the beauty of God’s design of the human
body through scientific work—and thus be led to conclude that God is an
incomparable Designer. We can, however, only know that God’s creation is Trinitarian
through special revelation.
|
Jesus (Just wanted to be sure that was clear) |
Returning
to my basic guideline: theology can and must journey beyond the strict domains
of science, but that it must not contradict those findings, I conclude that we need
Jesus to save the
sensus divinitatis,
because, as the church confesses, Jesus
definitively
reveals God. In this sense, Jesus Christ saves natural knowledge of God from
its vagueness. Christ displays that there is no hidden God, as he is “the image
of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). This, in some sense, fulfills
“Rahner’s rule” in The Trinity that
“the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.” And so, with Barth (from CD
IV/1), I conclude, “The meaning of deity “cannot be gathered from any notion of
supreme, absolute non-worldly being. It can be learned only from what took place
in Christ.” Our natural knowledge of God needs to be clarified by Christ.
Ultimately then Christ saves natural knowledge
of God from vagueness and potentially pernicious misuse. In fact, Christian
believers are urged to take on that form of that christomorphic (by which I
mean literally “formed around Christ) moment-by-moment. After developing his
most elaborated christocentric theology in the book of Romans, Paul moves to the
hortatory section. We can sure that when he calls the Roman churches to be transformed
or meta-morphicized (to transliterate
the Greek), he is urging them to take the form of Christ, who is also the goal
of human yearning: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your
minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and
acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:1-2, italics mine). Consequently, the Church
can be formed, as a community in worship and discipleship, from a vague,
amorphous sensus divinitatis, into
bearing the image of God to the world.