Missional Professors: The Need for Theological and Philosophical Maturity

 * From Paul Gould's The Outrageous Idea of the Missional Professor...

"Finally, while experts within their own particular fields of study, Christian professors often possess a Sunday school level of education when it comes to matters theological and philosophical.  A missional professor, however, must be competent, even well-versed, in such matters.  Sadly, this is rarely the case, and the result is a patchwork attempt to integrate one's faith with one's scholarly work and an inability to fit the pieces of one's life into God's larger story.  Christian professors who are seeking to be faithful witnesses for Christ within the secular academy face immense challenges." (p. 7)

Theology and Science: What Is the Relationship?

How should theology contribute to scientific positions?

            The question presupposes that theology can and should contribute to scientific positions.  For theology to be able to contribute more than mere moral maxims (i.e., “Don’t falsify your data.”) theology must be conceived in a robust manner; a kind of theistic realism in which God is objectively real and has made true propositional content available to humankind.  Historically, evangelicals have endorsed such a robust theistic realism.  Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook but it does make claims (when properly interpreted and understood) that have factual implications regarding the natural world.    In light of the above, there are at least three ways in which a robust evangelical theology might be able to contribute to scientific positions.

            First, theology can seek to provide the conceptual foundations for the scientific enterprise itself.  Science, as an empirically based methodology, rests upon philosophical presuppositions which are not themselves demonstrable in an empirical manner.  The question as to what kind of worldview might provide the matrix in which these philosophical presuppositions best fit is a crucial one.  It has been argued that a theistic worldview best explains the philosophical presuppositions needed for science.[1]  

            Second, theology might provide some factual claims that serve as boundary markers that are nonnegotiable.  Examples might include the beginning of the universe and the historicity of Adam.  J. P. Moreland, utilizing the conceptual work of philosopher of science Larry Laudan, notes that one can be epistemically justified in bringing “external conceptual problems” to bear upon a given scientific theory.  Moreland argues:

            Suppose someone held to the following two propositions:

                        

1.     The Bible is the Word of God and it teaches the truth on matters of which it speaks.

 

2.     The Bible, properly interpreted, teaches (among other things) certain truths that run counter to evolutionary theory and which are consistent with creationist theories.

 

Suppose further that this person had a list of good, rational arguments for these two propositions. In support of (1), he or she lists arguments from prophecy, history, archeology, and other areas of science for the contention that the Bible is a divinely inspired book and it is rational to trust it when it speaks on any matter, science included. In support of (2), he or she offers detailed arguments from hermeneutical theory, linguistics, comparative ancient Near Eastern studies, and so forth.

 

In the case just cited, such an individual would have reasons, perhaps good reasons, for believing that the general theory of evolution, in its current or recognizably future forms, is false and that creationism will be vindicated.[2]

 

Thus, theology can be used to provide truth claims which can serve as external conceptual problems for a reigning scientific theory.

            Third, theology can generate alternative paradigms which may choose to focus on anomalous elements in the current and more broadly accepted paradigm.[3]  Two quick examples will have to suffice here.  First, the Intelligent Design movement focused on the so-called “junk DNA” and hypothesized that these segments of DNA would be found to be irrelevant.  Second, Young Earth Creationists continue to hunt for and analyze soft tissue in dinosaur bones.  Whether the findings in these areas overturn the reigning paradigm is beside the point.  The fact that these scientists are motivated to pursue alternative lines of questioning and research may help to generate insights which would have been overlooked in other frameworks.

---

     [1] I have defended this view in more detail in my essay “Why Science Needs God: Analyzing the Religion and Science Conflict” Christian Post(January 12, 2019)—online: https://www.academia.edu/38140780/Why_Science_Needs_God_Analyzing_the_Religion_and_Science_Conflict.

     [2] J. P. Moreland, “Conceptual Problems and the Scientific Status of Creation Science” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45 (March 1994), n.p. in online version—online: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1994/PSCF3-94Moreland.html.  

     [3] Hat tip to Thomas Kuhn.

Biblical and Theological Resources for the Problem of Evil

 * The following was written for a Philosophy of Religion class I am taking.  Here was the prompt for the essay: 

You will write one short three-page, double-spaced paper (do not go onto the fourth page!!). Here you will do a biblical and theological reflection on the problem of evil. This is not a research paper. You want to explore the question: “How does our biblical and theological framework provide resources or parameters for our investigation into the problem of evil?”

__________________________

Christians have an abundance of resources available to them in terms of biblical material and theological reflection to aid in approaching the problem of evil—both its philosophical and existential aspects.  In order to briefly canvas some of this terrain four categories of theology will be considered: God, Sin, Jesus Christ, and Eschatology.[1]

God.  The God of the Bible is the sovereign Creator who continues to sustain all things in existence.  Further, God is good, unstained by evil.  In that the traditional set-up of the problem of evil attempts to play God’s attributes of omnipotence and goodness against one another, it is important to maintain both attributes in their biblical fullness.  We ought not to relinquish either attribute in a quest to neutralize the objection.  God’s sovereignty, as manifested in the biblical storyline, also shows us that God’s plans and intentions are not always immediately apparent.  The story of Joseph with its pain and setbacks leading to ultimate vindication in a different season demonstrate this.  The story of Job shows us as well that, at times, God’s heavenly dictates are inscrutable to those on the earth.  This provides impetus for elements of the “skeptical theist” approach to the problem of evil.

Another key component is the glory of God.  Theologians such as Jonathan Edwards argue that God’s glory is the ultimate value in the cosmos and is the chief thing that God is seeking to manifest in all his deeds.  God’s glory can be analyzed in terms of his essential nature (which cannot increase or decrease), his excellent deeds (which express God’s excellent being and character), and the epistemic goods which flow from conscious agents becoming acquainted with and appreciating God’s exalted character revealed in excellent deeds).[2]  This fuller understanding of God’s glory is important if one wants to properly assess the possibilities for a greater-good defense.  Many times, the “greater-goods” contemplated in answers to the problem of evil revolve around human-centered goods.  A focus on God’s glory as the ultimate value as displayed and understood opens up larger vistas to contemplate.  In other words, divine-centered goods needed to be added to the mix as well.

Sin.  A full doctrine of sin shows its extensive influence and powerful reverberations across all relationships.  Rebellion against God creates fractured relationship between humanity and (1) God, (2) other humans, (3) ourselves (in psychological disruptions), and (4) the created order itself which “groans” under the burden of the curse of God.  This gruesome, four-fold fracturing is important to acknowledge since it shows that the world, as it currently exists, is not fully “normal.”  It is not the way it was intended to be by God.  It also reminds us that evil and pain are not illusory but, rather, concrete realities that must be dealt with.  Under the category of sin mention should be made of demonic evil.  The New Testament in particular draws attention to these forces.  Not only does this show us that the problem of evil is much deeper and intense than some allow but it also may be of service in explaining some other elements of evil.[3]

Jesus Christ.  At the center of Christian theism is Jesus Christ.  In his life we see One who is continually fighting evil and suffering in exorcisms and healings.  Thus, we see that passivity in the face of evil and suffering has no place.  We see Jesus weeping and angry in the face of evil and suffering.  In this we see proper emotional responses to evil and suffering.  And in seeing the suffering of Jesus of himself, we see that, in some strange way, not even God himself is immune from suffering.  The fact that Jesus has suffered is often brought up in the New Testament as a hope-inducing example for believers who are going through suffering.  Suffering is to be expected for those who following the Suffering Servant.  Not only has Jesus suffered, but he has also been raised from the dead.  The resurrection provides a perspective on the problem of evil in which a horrendous evil—the crucifixion of the Son of God—can be overcome by the great good of the vindication of the Jesus the Messiah and its attendant blessings flowing to billions of people.[4]  Furthermore, the very complex of events consisting of the incarnation of the Son of God, his suffering for atonement, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a great-making feature of the world.  Alvin Plantinga and others have drawn attention to particularly the incarnation and atonement as indicative of a contingent good-making characteristic of our world “that towers above all the rest of the contingent states of affairs included in our world.”[5]  With this datum, Plantinga is able to construct a justification for God’s permitting evil, namely, that it will allow for the extremely great-goods of the incarnation and atonement.

Eschatology.  The Christian vision of history is linear and purposive.  God is bringing the cosmos to a teleological goal—the “summing up of all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1.10).  This provides assurance and hope at an existential level.  This also factors into how we calculate the amount of good and evil.  John Frame explains, “Since the ultimate theodicy is future, we must now deal with the problem of evil by faith.  We cannot total up the present evils against the present goods and from that calculation exonerate god of blame.”[6]  While we wait for the eschatological fullness of God’s plan we philosophize in hope and sing, “how long, O Lord?”[7]

---

     [1] I will largely refrain from proof-texting to demonstrate the biblical basis of the individual points in an effort to conserve space.

     [2] I was helped to develop this tri-partite understanding of God’s glory by Daniel M. Johnson, “Calvinism and the Problem of Evil: A Map of the Territory” in Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, eds. David E. Alexander and Daniel M. Johnson (Eugene, Ore: Pickwick Publications, 2016), 44-45.

     [3] Alvin Plantinga brings up the possibility of some forms of natural evil being the result of demonic beings in God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 58.

     [4] The notion of “horrendous evil” comes from Marilyn McCord Adams and she specifically mentions the crucifixion of Jesus as an example of a horrendous evil in her essay “Horrendous Evil and the Goodness of God” in The Problem of Evil, eds. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 212.

     [5] Alvin Plantinga, “Supralapsarianism, or ‘O Felix Culpa,’” in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil, ed. Peter Van Inwagen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 1-25; reprinted in Michael Peterson, ed. The Problem of Evil: Selected Readings—2^nd ed. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017), 368.

     [6] John Frame, “The Problem of Evil,” in Suffering and the Goodness of God, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 156.  

     [7] Kristin M. Swenson has written of the Psalms that they “provide a vocabulary and language for expressing pain, a grammar of pain, which continues to resonate for people struggling with difficulties understanding and describing their particular experiences of suffering.”  Quoted in David B. Calhoun, “Poems in the Dark: My Cancer and God’s Grace” in Suffering and the Goodness of God, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 186.

"Tensions in Contemporary Theology": Some Quotations

 

Tensions in Contemporary Theology (eds. Stanley N. Gundry and Alan F. Johnson, Moody Press) was published in 1976.  Its goal was to critically analyze theological trends operative in the 1960s-1970s.  The theological landscape has changed in the last forty-five years but the essays are still interesting reading.  I haven't read all of them but I did spend time recently reading Bernard Ramm's chapter ("The Fortunes of Theology From Schleiermacher to Barth and Bultmann") as well as Harold B. Kuhn's contribution ("Secular Theology").  I then read the concluding essay by Harold O. J. Brown ("The Conservative Option").

Here a few random thoughts and quotations from the book:

1.  "Evangelicals need to be acquainted with the major theological thinkers of our time.  We cannot expect to commend our own outlook if we show ourselves completely ignorant of the position held by others.  In a certain sense we need to earn our right to disagree, and part of this earning lies in an accurate understanding and appraisal of the position of those who we differ.  One charge which evangelicals have often leveled at others is that they have presented criticism of the conservative stance that manifested very inadequate information, often based on second-hand materials and reflecting a biased approach and a caricature of what the evangelical view is.  We cannot afford to emulate this kind of onesidedness.  Since we want to be treated fairly, we owe it to ourselves and to others to treat others fairly."  Roger Nicole (from the Foreword, p. 7)

2.  "The evangelical needs to learn many important lessons, even from those with whom he disagrees.  They often have managed to make their voice heard in more effective ways than we have.  They sometimes have related themselves to problems and aspirations which may have been neglected in evangelical circles.  Thus, even in places where faithfulness to the biblical message demands that we should disagree, we may cull valuable insights into the mood and spirit of our age.  Furthermore, we ought not to reason that, because certain positions are subject to criticism, they contain no element of truth whatsoever.  In most cases views which command a wide support do embody substantial elements of truth.  We must ever remain teachable and be prepared to find valuable insights, even in places where at first  we might not have been inclined to seek teaching for ourselves.  By broadening the range of our horizon we may be in a better position to understand our own faith and commend it to others."  Roger Nicole (Foreword, pp. 7-8)

3.  "In the broadest definition possible, religious liberalism was the effort to restate the Christian faith in harmony with the Enlightenment, or from the perspective of the Enlightenment."  Bernard Ramm, 18

4.  [A]ll Christian doctrines either are reconstructed so as to conform to these philosophical criteria or are eliminated.  The locus of faith is no longer in what God says (divine revelation) or in what God does (redemption in history) but primarily in what man experiences."  Bernard Ramm, 19

5.  "It is not that liberal theology rejected Holy Scripture.  It relocated its authority.  One of the pioneers in this was S. T. Coleridge, who said that the Bible was the Word of God because it reached him more deeply than any other book.  The power of Scripture was, then, in its spiritual effect upon man and not in its objective inspiration."  Bernard Ramm, 28

6,  "As the orthodox doctrine of God and the Trinity eroded in liberal theology, new efforts were made to restate the doctrine of God.  Liberal theology really started out with pantheism in the theology of Schleiermacher--so claims H. R. Mackintosh.  But this could not be the final resting place of the liberals' doctrine of God.  In order to stress the immanence of God and yet not fall into pantheism, liberalism talked of panentheism.  "God in all things."  This would salvage the doctrine of the divine immanence which was so important to religious liberalism and yet hopefully save it from a pantheism which would be fatal to Christian theology."  Bernard Ramm, 31

7.  "Paul van Buren is usually regarded as part of the death-of-God movement,... he concerns himself with the linguistic aspect of the question.  He begins with the proposition that it is today meaningless to speak of God at all; the laws of human language have rendered the very word God inoperative

"He bases his case for the proposition, 'The word "God" is dead,' upon what he terms the 'verification principle,' by which he means that the function of a statement must determine its meaning.  He contends that the statement 'God exists' is meaningless to the person whose attitude and approach is that of secularism, for it does not fit the standards of empirical verification."  Kuhn, 168

Note: I find it ironic and a little sad that just a few years after this Alvin Plantinga would philosophically trounce the verification principle and reassert traditional theism as a viable intellectual option.  Van Buren simply lapped up the current philosophical currents rather than critically engaging them from a Christian worldview.  The verification principle is now seen to be bankrupt and Van Buren's theology is a relic of the past and has so contemporary staying power.  

8.  "Finally, attempts to erect systems of theology upon the supposed ruins of a revelation which is rejected run counter to what has been deeply felt by the Christian community.  More important still, such systems have an opponent which they refuse to see or to acknowledge--namely, the dynamic which is inherent in the inspired Word, the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, who was the agent of its inspiration."  Kuhn, 170

Note: This is one of my favorite quotations from this book.  It reminds us that theological polemics is not simply a wrangle of words.  The battle between belief and unbelief is one in which the Holy Spirit takes sides.  He is committed to exalting and glorifying Christ Jesus and his gospel (John 16.13-15).  He will not suffer the name of Jesus to be forever demeaned and dragged through the muddy waters of alien theological presuppositions.

9.  "Being a conservative evangelical and accepting the doctrine of biblical infallibility does not require any sacrificium intellectus (the sacrifice of one's understanding or intellectual integrity).  Quite the contrary is true.  It is, rather, other varieties of theology, ones that have enjoyed greater vogue in academic circles, that require such a sacrifice.  Intellectually speaking, we should defend the viewpoint that evangelical theology is not merely a viable option but a superior one."  Brown, 328

10.   "'Dialogue' only a partial possibility.  Prior to regeneration the human mind is inherently incapable of grasping, even merely intellectually, the substance of the biblical message.  Consequently, the dialogue of the believing Christian thinker with unbelieving intellectual colleagues will always operate under severe handicaps.  It is, of course, possible to present the Gospel in such a manner that the difficulty of believing it is magnified unnecessarily.  But it is never possible to present it in such a manner that every difficulty associated faith is removed, particularly in the light of the fact that at least one major impediment to belief lies neither in the message itself nor in its presentation but in the heart of the unconverted hearer.... Even when all possible intellectual roadblocks have been cleared, some barriers will remain, apart from the grace of God and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the unconverted heart.  The unbeliever is not prepared to see his difficulty in accepting the content of the Gospel message in these terms but will believe that certain intellectual or moral obstacles remain to be surmounted.  Thus the unbeliever may well encourage his Christian colleagues in the misapprehension that by a more skillful and subtle approach to the problem, by a more delicate and discriminating sensitivity, by a more thorough command of the attendant facts and related intellectual disciplines, they could carry the dialogue through to successful persuasion.  We must recognize that this is an illusion: when all major and minor intellectual obstacles have been removed, all questions fairly met, and no issues skirted, the Gospel will continue to be rejected 'intellectually' as long as it is not accepted spiritually, that is, as long as repentance and conversion are not present."  Brown, 329-330

11.  "The danger of intellectual respectability.  The evangelical who is concerned to show the intellectual respectability of scriptural teachings set himself a worthy goal; but unless he remembers that he can never fully secure the approval of unbelievers for his doctrine apart from their spiritual conversion, there may come a time when he is tempted to compromise the Bible's proclamation in order to secure greater agreement from the participants in the dialogue.  The greatest scholarly accuracy and the highest intellectual attainments on the part of the evangelist or apologete will not entirely free him from intellectual disrepute as long as he submits, in the final analysis, to the authority of the Bible as the Word of God and affirms the need for personal conversion and salvation by grace through faith.  In each of these doctrines there is something that offends the natural man.  That offense cannot be removed, no matter how tactful or erudite the presentation, as long as the message is not altered."  Brown, 330

12.  "A defective theology may not destroy an individual's saving faith nor his personal relationship to Christ; but it will make it difficult or impossible for him to transmit or teach the truths of the faith to those who come after him."  Brown, 331

13.  "It should now be evident that the least sophisticated fundamentalist, with a naive and perhaps even myopic acceptance of partially understood Scripture, is less likely to make errors disastrous for his faith and salvation than the refined critic who wonders whether God can speak, whether He would use human language to do so, and whether human language is capable of expressing anything unambiguous in which we can unreservedly put our trust."  Brown, 350-351

14.  "The human rebellion against the will of God has in a way proceeded serially against the persons of the Trinity: rebellion against the Holy Spirit in the rejection of inspiration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; rebellion against the Son in the rejection of a substitutionary atonement and redemption through the blood of Christ in the nineteenth and twentieth; now, rebellion against the Father in the denial of creation and even of the objective reality of the universe in the twentieth."  Brown, 353-354

Worldview Formation and Theistic Science

School has started again and I'm teaching a course on apologetics and one on evolution.  Below is what I handed out for today's teaching time for the class on evolution.  I'm attempting to start with some thoughts on the philosophy of science and how theology should be integrated.

Worldview Formation and Theistic Science

[T]he Christian worldview has a wide variety of arguments in its favor.  Suppose someone is convinced that Christianity is true for some of the reasons offered in this and other apologetic works.  That person could be rational in rejecting the general theory of evolution for reasons outside science, even if evolution is rationally justified when science is considered alone (and this is itself questionable).  The rationality of a worldview is a multifaceted affair, involving scientific, historical, and philosophical considerations.  It is difficult to see why science should be singled out for the role of dictator in worldview assessment, since worldviews are broad paradigms which must take into account all the facets of life… Science is an important part of worldview assessment, but it is only one part.[1]

In its broadest sense, theistic science is rooted in the idea that Christians ought to consult all they know or have reason to believe in forming and testing hypotheses, in explaining things in science, and in evaluating the plausibility of various scientific hypotheses, and among the things they should consult are propositions of theology.[2]

Relationship between Doctrines

The above diagram is attempting to show something of the relationship between various doctrines associated with creation, humanity, and the age of the earth. 

The doctrine of creation—the fact that God has created without yet specifying an answer to the “how” question—is of crucial importance.  To affirm creation is to deny all forms of naturalism; it is to recognize that God is the Creator. 

The doctrine of the historicity of Adam and Eve is of importance due to its connections with so many other doctrines in the Scriptures (i.e., sin, the goodness of God, inerrancy, unity of the human race, etc.). 

The age of the earth is farther out on the diagram.  It does not hold as central a place in the doctrinal hierarchy.  One could change one’s view on this topic and it would require some recalibration of other beliefs to bring consistency but the re-working of the overall doctrinal system would not be as extensive as changing one’s view on Adam and Eve or on the notion of God as Creator.

Also, as one moves out from the center of the diagram the fullest and clearest biblical material is in the center with less as one moves to the outer edge.  In other words, there is more biblical data on God as Creator than on the age of the earth.

     [1] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987), 204.

     [2] J. P. Moreland, “Theistic Science and Methodological Naturalism” in The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer edited by J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1994), 41.