The Bible and the Natural Theology Knowledge of God

Certainly science and human reflection are not the only loci for discovery a basic awareness of divinity. It is also implicit in the Church’s confession that God is “the Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” To know that God has created humankind implies that we are created for God. As Psalm 42:1 declares, “O God, I yearn for you.” When God created the man and the woman in the divine image, it means that they are created for relationships. We read it in the first pages of the Scripture.

      

Both the Priestly (Genesis 1:1-2:3) and the Jahwist (Genesis 2:4b-25) accounts of creation describe relational aspect of the image of God. As an aspect of this relationality, God can communicate with men and women. In Genesis 1:29-30, God speaks directly to them—communication represents a significant form of relating. Because human beings are made in God’s image, we can enter into a relationship with God, and in fact, this relationship with God is the highest call of human beings. Jesus, later in the Scripture, echoed this with an invitation: “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 15.12, italics added) and even goes so far as to call his followers “friends” (John 15.15), indicating how intimate this relationship can be.

      

In Genesis 1:27, creation as male and female implies that human beings are to relate to one another, for which marriage (Genesis 2:24) is the most definitive human institution. Relationality is also demonstrated by the fact that both male and female are created in God’s image, and therefore neither is definitively the human being. Humanity is only adequately represented by both sexes.

      

Earlier in the text of Genesis 2, Adam is told to have “dominion” over the animals—better understood as stewardship like a good king and names the animals (Genesis 2:19).

The scholarship on this passage is immense. Here I will simply cite Douglas John Hall, “Under the conditions of imperial Christianity, it was not stewardship but lordliness that appealed to the mentality of the church’s policy makers. Thus, historic Christianity has seemed either to ignore and escape from the world, or else wish to possess it” (The Steward, 82) In this context, I am reminded of René Descartes’ notorious phrase that we are “masters and possessors of nature.” Hall continues his analysis and reclaiming of the concept of human stewardship: it means that we must take in action role in tending creation and abandon “forms of religion that denigrate the natural world, that view the world as primarily a cache of resources to be exploited for human ends” (ibid.).

In the following curses of Genesis, Adam and Eve have a disrupted relationship with earth, e.g., that there will be toil in farming and “thorn and thistles” (Genesis 3:17-19).

      

The Ten Commandments (found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) exemplify these relationships. The first four begin with God: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2-3). As creatures, our essential relationship is with our Creator. As distinct from other creatures, we can return praise to God. In the “second tablet” of the Decalogue addresses human relationships such as do not steal, do not commit adultery. And there is a hint of the relationship with the rest of creation: the Sabbath command sets up not only rest for human beings but also for the “ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock” (Deuteronomy 5:14).

      

There is also an implied relationship with self that is necessary for human moral reflection, but comes most clearly into view in Paul’s tortured self-reflection in Romans 7:7-25, encapsulated in his cry of individual incomprehension, “I do not understand my own actions” (Romans 7:15). (Incidentally, whether Paul is speaking pre- or post-conversion is not relevant in this exposition.) Proper relationality means harmony; disruption, disharmony and incomprehension reveal a tortured and sinful relation. But for the purposes here, it is a relation nonetheless.

      

To state this more systematically, Genesis 1-2 sets up four basic relationships: with God, with other human beings, with ourselves (implied), with the rest of creation (other animals, plants, and the earth).

      

This essentially human relationality—especially in our relation to God—sets up a natural knowledge of God. Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-15 constitute the locus classicus for the natural knowledge of God, or indeed, a natural theology. In Romans 1:19-20, Paul notes this awareness:

¹⁹For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

As Paul lays out his case for why all stand before God in need of Christ’s redemption, he argues that all people know “God” (or perhaps better “god”—the garden variety word theos is used here). As James D. G. Dunn writes, “some sort of natural theology is involved here…. Paul is certainly conversant with and indeed indebted to a strong strand of like-minded Hellenistic Jewish wisdom theology.” Dunn notes Wisdom of Solomon 12-15, especially verses 19-32.

A comparison text is Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God has put “eternity into our hearts.” Overall I agree with the exposition of Joseph Fitzmeier in his commentary on Romans that Paul is indicating humankind has some innate knowledge of God. I cannot agree with Karl Barth in his A Shorter Commentary on Romans, “Paul does not dream of paying the Gentiles anything resembling a compliment and of trying to find in their religions some point of contact for the understanding of the Gospel…..”

Still, for Paul, this knowledge remains relatively vaguely—only his “eternal power” and “deity” or “divine nature.”

      

Additionally, in Romans 2, Paul is arguing that both Jews and Gentiles stand universally in need of Christ’s redemption. He is moving toward the key statement, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) to be resolved by the redemption in Christ “But God proves his love for us that while we were still sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). In the course of this argument, he appeals to the conscience of the Gentiles, and their ability to do “what the law requires.” Specifically, in Romans 2:14-16, Paul writes

¹⁴When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. ¹⁵They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them ¹⁶on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

Paul’s point here is not about natural theology per se, but that the Gentiles have some innate or natural knowledge of God’s moral will. Perhaps Paul is referring to Stoic notions, Jewish Wisdom concepts, or both. In any event, he clearly presents some natural knowledge God, expanding on the previous statement in 1:18-20 about God’s “invisible power and deity” to include now sufficient knowledge of God’s “law” or moral that all will be judged by the standard of the gospel of Christ, by the one Paul proclaims “his gospel.”

      

Put together, these biblical passages assert that we are created for God, that we know the general nature of God (especially his power and otherness as deity), and that we have a moral conscience. More on what that means in light of science in the following post...

Conversation Not Going Well?

Over the past two years I have taught several science & religion classes at Stonehill College, participated heavily in the Science in Congregations project, in addition to writing and speaking broadly about the intersection of science and religion. Two things stand out: First, the science-and-religion conversation remains incredibly important. Daily we read stories about "The God Particle," "The God Module in our brains," "The End Times," "Playing God with Genetics," "Death Panels," "The Death of Traditional Marriage," and other topics where the advance of science appears to overrun the tradition terrain of values.

Secondly, this conversation is not going well. Religious belief is often dangerously opposed to mainstream scientific ideas like  Evolution, the Big Bang, Climate Change, and even the vaccination of children.  

There is much to do.

Guest Post: Karl Giberson, PhD

www.karlgiberson.com

Challenging the Perceptions (SinC Grantee Guest Blog)

Imagine hearing a church member and research scientist remark, “I often feel more accepted by my non-Christian colleagues in the lab than I do by my fellow church members.” An isolated comment? Not quite.

Funded by the Templeton-sponsored Scientists in Congregations program, our two-year initiative is eliciting several similar comments. Escalating culture wars and the recent election season have expanded the perceived divide between science and Christianity. Too often church members feel they must choose either biblical faith or scientific materialism. We are challenging that perception.

The Scientists in Congregations vision “calls for a sustained, creative collaboration between practitioners in the fields of science (scientists or science educators) and theology / faith practice (pastors) who are already engaged with one another through shared participation in the life of a congregation.” Our large, evangelical mainline church in Boulder, CO, is well-suited for this collaboration. For nearly 140 years we have been neighbors of the University of Colorado, Boulder, where many of our church members are employed in teaching or administration. Many congregants also serve in federal research laboratories or privately owned technology firms. Science fills the air of our rarefied Rocky Mountain region, one of the best-educated portions of the U.S. Our grant seeks to build bridges of listening, learning, and constructive engagement within our church membership and beyond it into our northern Front Range community.

The first bridge is between a pastor and a scientist in the congregation. I am particularly fortunate to have as my grant co-leader a University of California at Berkeley-trained Ph.D. in chemical engineering, an ordained Presbyterian elder who is exceptionally well-read theologically. Allan Harvey is a scientist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and we have enjoyed many profound conversations about the theological implications of recent scientific discoveries. These have taken us into new ways of interpreting human origins in Genesis, taking into consideration paleontology, cosmology, and the Human Genome Project. We are probing theistic evolution and traditional understandings of the Fall and reflecting on what it means to be made in the image of God. We are tackling concepts like the human soul, free will, and the implications of brain science.

We have recruited a planning team of church members who are climate scientists, geologists, biologists, and physicians. Since a number of church members serve in health care, a large component of our Scientists in Congregations project will include exploration of faith and the health sciences.

We began by hosting focus groups for scientists, learning about their challenges and needs. We moved on to luncheons for both scientists/science educators and physicians/health care practitioners. These informal gatherings allowed us to listen to the concerns they face as Christians in their fields and to offer our thanks for their service in these important areas. As a psychiatrist remarked with enthusiasm, “The church has never done anything like this for us before!”

We have gathered congregational questions on science and faith for inclusion in an FAQ website. A sermon series on Genesis 1-3 explored fresh approaches to these ancient texts. We have hosted a geology field trip that combined worship and devotions with a detailed exploration of Boulder’s striking Flatirons formations. We are planning further field trips led by congregational scientists (for example, in botany and astronomy). In a mutually enriching way, these allow us to wed our faith and appreciation for God’s beautiful creation with solid scientific insights provided by experts in our church.

With a sister congregation in Fort Collins, we have cosponsored a weekend conference combining the teaching of a Christian physicist with a pastor-theologian. The grant allowed us to bus our church members north to this venue to enjoy an all expense-paid day of learning together. Most recently, we have hosted the DVD series “Test of Faith” produced by the Faraday Institute, a group of evangelical scientists in the United Kingdom. This six-week class attracted over 100 participants each Sunday, only half of whom had a background in the sciences.

To date, the Scientists in Congregations program has been well-received by a majority of our congregation. However, some more conservative (and vocal) congregants have voiced their concerns, perceiving this offering as a potential slippery slope into theological compromise and apostasy. As leaders, we have realized there is a necessary pastoral care component to our project; we need to be non-anxious and open to meeting with people to hear and discuss their concerns. Yet at the same time we must stand for what we believe are the complementary aspects of God’s truth expressed both in the Book of Scripture (special revelation read with open minds and the eyes of faith) and the Book of Nature (general revelation studied with the tools of science). In this current climate of division and suspicion, striking this balance is not easy.

It is delightful to watch how this Scientists in Congregations program has spread beyond our church walls. We have been featured in a local newspaper  article and we are noticing that our church members are bringing scientific colleagues and friends from other churches to our gatherings. But most gratifying of all is the quiet, transforming effect this program is having with some who have previously felt alienated by the church. One long-time church member shared these words:

I felt acceptance by the congregation required a closed-minded, simple regurgitation of litanies whether they had meaning or were applicable to life as we currently must live it. I continued to attend sporadically, but out of a sense of spiritual duty, not from joy. I even came to the point of questioning my faith in Christianity and the religious practice of it.... And then I started attending the class on Science and Christianity. Because you were willing to open a dialogue within the church membership about very important and significant things, I feel renewed.... I have not only found that there are many within our congregation who struggle with the same issues as I do, but that we can come to a reasonable, thoughtful reconciliation.

Guest Post: Carl Hofmann

[Bio: Carl Hofmann (M.Div., 1991; D.Min., 2002) is an ordained Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) pastor serving for the past ten years as associate for spiritual formation and discipleship at the First Presbyterian Church of Boulder, CO. Together with elder Dr. Allan Harvey, they lead the Scientists in Congregations program in their church (http://fpcscienceandfaith.wordpress.com/). Carl is married to Rupali and they have two sons, Jason (18) and Jordan (13).]

Science and the Natural Knowledge of God

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, 
Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

Nicene Creed

What is the place of a natural knowledge of God? If we can answer this question adequately, we can more properly situate the dialogue of science and theology.

I believe we need to begin with the doctrine of God’s creating the universe and thus

humankind. In these posts, I will argue that God’s creating this world implies that all human beings possess some natural, though vague, knowledge and thus yearning for God.

      
On the way there, it is important to state a basic conviction: This theology must work for the church. I mean that ambiguous phrase in two ways: It must work to make the church better. It must serve the church. Naturally, the most significant representative is Karl Barth’s magisterial Church Dogmatics I/1, which he explicitly inserted the German word kirchliche in the title to his dogmatics (“church” as an adjective) to demonstrate that theology must preach. It has to be kerygmatic. Theology therefore “is a function of the Church.” Put another way, theology must work for the church in that it makes the church a better place. In my reading, too many theologies are written from the perspective of those disdainful of the actual life of Christian communities. In this light, I will present a natural theology, one principally taking in the insights of science, the necessities of the church, and the insights of Scripture.

In working with a type of “creative mutual interaction” that Robert J. Russell sets out within the typology of a Lakatosian “research program,” in Time in Eternity, I am convinced that, in the interaction of science and theology, theology must grasp, then not violate, the insights of science. As John Polkinghorne rightly argues, a scientifically-informed theology demonstrates that we are inherently motivated to believe what is truth and that our beliefs correspond to reality within the framework of critical realism. Simply stated, Polkinghorne argues that theology is “motivated belief.” Put in more traditional language, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature have the same Author, and therefore do not contradict one another.

      
In this light, natural knowledge of God provides a key test case for applying scientific insights to theology, not least because scientists (such as the atheist Richard Dawkins) commonly make statements about God’s existence or non-existence. In addition, a natural knowledge of God might be demonstrated, or at least supported, by the insights of science. And finally, the scientific study of nature also flows from a commitment (whether explicit or not) that the world is rational and ordered, which historically has flowed from the confession that God created this world. Charles Townes, in a lecture on the relationship between the Christian faith and modern science, summarizes this connection: 

For successful science of the type we know, we must have faith that the universe is governed by reliable laws and, further, that these laws can be discovered by human inquiry.” 

How then can we bring the insights about the natural world into our doctrine of God as Creator? That is the general tenor of this section. More specifically here, is there a natural knowledge of God, how does that relate to science, and what does this mean for the church? Let me move to some personal experience.

At times in my work as a pastor, and in response to this search for a reasonably intricate theology, I can hear someone reply: “Last weekend, I spent time in the mountains, gazing across a cool, still lake, listening to the wind through the trees. I was able to be silent. In the quiet of nature, I directly encountered God. I learned more about God there than I ever do in a worship service. On Sunday mornings, I hear about God. There I actually touched my Creator.”

      
In many ways, this natural knowledge of God is anti-ecclesial. It poses the question: Why do I need church when I have this direct experience? Why do I need a message from the pulpit when there are “sermons in stones” (to quote William Shakespeare)? From my pastoral experience—and, really, my experience generally—many people, religious or not, find an almost palpable presence of God in creation. And here a few definitions help. In theological language, we enter the realm of general revelation, where God is available “generally,” to all human beings. In many ways, my reflections on the natural knowledge of God constitute a form of general revelation, which also implies God’s benevolence toward all human beings, whether believer or not. As the Gospel of Matthew phrases it (5:45): God “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous.” Theologians contrast it—or complement it—with special revelation, God’s particular acts and communication with the covenant people of Israel and the church. The key point to emphasize is that in either general or special revelation, God is still the One revealing. God is the One who must speak in self-revelation. In this chapter, I will only briefly touch on a related area, natural theology, which takes the data of nature and seeks to build a theological system, and particularly what it means within the critical interaction of science and theology.

      
I find Alister McGrath’s phrase from A Scientific Theology, Volume I, succinct and profound: "there is an intrinsic capacity within the created order to disclose God." To use Wolfhart Pannenberg's phrase, this creates a "non thematic" relationship to God. This relationship arrives from bearing God’s image, the imago dei (which I will develop in the next section). To use John Calvin’s phrase, it is a sensus divinitatis, or “sense of the divine” (which I will also develop below). This sensus divinitatis provides a background for a more robust and articulated faith in God. It is endemic to human life and therefore an important component toward building a theology for the church informed by science.

      
To be clear, this natural knowledge of God poses a challenge. Here I am responding to this challenge by formulating the proper, useful, and even necessary place for the awareness of God in nature and thus in ourselves (our reflection on nature and our understanding of our own desires), as well as what science has discovered about the natural world. Put with utmost economy of words: A natural awareness of divinity is necessary, but not sufficient, for our understanding of God. In this regard, I am steering a path alongside Calvin’s sensus divinitatis, seeking to avoid Barth’s abhorrence of “natural theology” and of Vatican I’s rather overblown declaration that God can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason from created things.

(More in the next post, "The Bible and the Natural Theology Knowledge of God.")

The Good News of Being Pro-Science

I know there’s a lot of bad news these days in my denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA) , but I’m about to deliver some good news.

Presbyterians (and mainline denominations generally) are pro-science, and an anti-science mentality is driving emerging adults away from church.

A few of those pro-science mainline (PCUSA) pastors

I take this to be good news, and I’ll speak personally. I'm Presbyterian pastor with an evangelical-mainline mix, who completed a doctorate in theology with an emphasis on the dialogue with science. As a result, I’ve also taught theology and science in congregations for the past 20 years. And I can affirm there is definitely gospel in bringing together faith and the insights of science.

I’ll say a bit more about my experience in a bit, but let me start with the second part of my sentence above, namely, the problem facing the church: president of the Barna research Group David Kinnaman, in You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church, pursued the problem of why our 18-30 year olds don’t seem to find church congregations very interesting or worth their time. Kinnaman specifies, in six chapters, why emerging adults are exiting congregations. One of these is simply titled, “Antiscience.” The Christian church is seen as resisting the findings of science, afraid that they might endanger cherished doctrines. As Mike, one of the subjects of this research, commented, “To be honest, I think that learning about science was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I knew from church I couldn’t believe in both science and God, so that was it. I didn’t believe in God anymore.”

“I couldn’t believe in science and God anymore.” How did Mike come to this conclusion? I’m reasonably sure he learned that outside the PCUSA because I know our denomination boldly engages science. How do I know this? I and another pastoral colleague, David Wood, are wrapping up a $2 million, John Templeton Foundation sponsored-grant, Scientists in Congregations (SinC), which funded 37 congregations in 25 states and 2 other countries to catalyze the dialogue of theology and science in their churches. Despite the fact that we looked for interested parties from any Protestant denomination and the Catholic communion, almost half were PCUSA churches. And I think there are good reasons for this.

First of all, we have some good foundations. The other day I was reading John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (as we all ought to do regularly), and I came across this bold sentence from Book II, in a sub-section devoted to the sciences, “If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God.” Stunning! Calvin’s not talking about casually picking up a few scientific facts because they seem interesting; he’s addressing the question of honoring (or dishonoring) God’s Spirit through the way we engage the scientific study of nature.

Secondly, we have some amazing examples. Let me tell you about my experience with four of those congregations that are following Calvin’s dictum and honoring the Spirit by engaging in the truths that science discovers:

• In addition to an ongoing class on faith and science and a specific fellowship for scientists in their congregation, last fall, First Presbyterian Church of Boulder, Colorado, under the able direction of Carl Hofmann, their associate for education, hosted a conference on health care and faith. The Director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health and of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at Duke University, Harold Koenig, as well as the bestselling author, Philip Yancey, who has a profound interest in faith and science both spoke. 250 attended.
• St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Houston presented a talk on evolution and the Christian by Kenneth Miller, noted Brown biologist, which proved to be a major outreach to the community nearby. I preached the next day on “Make Me an Instrument of Your Peace,” which a call to reconcile faith and science in our lives, not least because our kids are engaging in science—52% of youth-group teens aspire to science-related careers like biology, chemistry, engineering, technology, as well as medical and health-related careers. My own daughter has just started a program at Barnard College of Columbia University in Neuroscience and Behavior. So I preached with conviction.
• My own church, Bidwell Presbyterian in Chico, California hosts the Chico Triad, a group of scholars from the two local academic institutions that meets monthly to discuss issues science and faith and presents an annual Science and Religion conference (which will happen in February), with this year’s topic, Science and Scripture. I also teach a yearly course on science, using a book I wrote commissioned by the PCUSA on theology and science, Creation and Last Things: At the Intersection of Theology and Science.
• One of my favorite stories comes from a smaller PCUSA church in Randolph, New York, which emerged at a conference SinC co-sponsored last May with Fuller Theological Seminary on preaching and science, called “Talk of God, Talk of Science.” When we interviewed our SinC congregations, the team at Randolph, pastor Leslie Latham and scientst Ruth Wahl, commented that, first of all, when they started talking science, the men showed up (who make up only 1/3^rd of our PCUSA congregations) and then said something that demonstrated the importance of having scientists who emerge out of the congregation because they have trust: “Oh, it’s Marie. She taught my kids. She’s not going to do anything anti-Christian.”

When we zoom out to the wider world, we realize that the church has not engaged with one of the most important theories that guides scientific inquiry, and which has stood 150 years of scrutiny, the theory of evolution through natural selection. (Need I add that, evolution doesn’t have to embrace Richard Dawkins’s “God doesn’t exist” naturalism?) It’s been a Presbyterian standard for decades that evolutionary science and our confession that God is Creator are compatible: “Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.” That’s one of our General Assembly’s “Selected Theological Statements” from 1969. It’s still good 45 years later.

Along those lines, a recent Pew research poll on evolution revealed stunning truths: 60% of the U. S. population believes that human beings and other living things evolved over time. While only 27% of white evangelical Protestants concur, 78% of white mainline Protestants accept evolution in this sense. (I want to add a disclaimer: I’m not sure why Pew focused on “white Protestants,” but that’s what they did. Nevertheless, the numbers are revealing.) My own background—with this combo of a mainline Protestant willingness to dialogue with all forms of knowledge, an evangelical love for Scripture and personal renewal in Christ, and a passion for “mere Christianity” or the “faith once delivered”—leads me to this conclusion: Mainliners must not let go of our engagement with legitimate science as a faithful calling (which the vast majority of our congregants hold to), while the evangelical voice in the PCUSA needs to jettison any refusal to countenance true science and at the same time can keep us all true to the confession of the authority of Scripture and that Christ is Lord and Head of the Church. These strands have deep roots in the PCUSA. 

All together, they qualify as good news for us… and the Church Universal.