Science and Christianity (Part 5)

The Enlightenment had a profound impact on the Church. Its effect is felt today. It is impossible to cover each and every nuance in a blog format. I want to focus on the overall impact it has had on Protestantism.

 

The 16^th Century Reformation came in response to a Roman Catholic Church that had become corrupt and ineffectual. As Luther, Calvin, and other reformers emerged from the struggles of the day, they questioned the emphasis placed on Church tradition for past centuries. They wanted to ground authority in something else: Sola Scriptura, Scripture only.

 

It didn't take long to realize that consensus on scriptural teaching was elusive. What would be the core determinative principles that would inform how Scripture is understood? What was foundational to the Christian living?

 

As the Enlightenment flourished in the eighteenth century, natural and revealed religion became a growing dichotomy. The first related to religion that could be demonstrated by reason, and the latter to doctrines taught by various religious factions. Hostility increased toward revealed religion, leading to deism and ultimately to an impasse. The two choices left were to abandon reason and accept the doctrines of the Church or embrace skeptical rationalism.

 

The nineteenth century saw yet another twist develops as theologians began looking for a way through the impasse. Some theologians worked to identify the religious experience that was common to all humanity. They postulated that there is a God consciousness in each of us. We gain insight by tapping into that consciousness, and doctrine emerges from those insights. Jesus was the greatest example of the path toward God-consciousness. In search of foundational experience, the human mind became exalted over the Scripture. Scripture was demythologized and reinterpreted to meet whatever God-consciousness direction theologians were going, always searching for the foundational reality. This became the liberal trajectory over the past two centuries.

 

The conservative theologians chose to respond to the impasse differently. They fully embraced rationalism and were determined to demonstrate the truth of Scripture by reason. The project became one of creating the unassailably logical Bible. Theology becomes less the study of God and more the science of doctrine. Theologians labored to identify the fundamental propositions that would rationally explain the whole Bible and incorporate any anomalies. The inerrant Bible would then offer a perfect "system" for addressing all issues.

 

As the twentieth century unfolded, the liberal wing of Christianity was in its glory. The Christian Century Magazine started in 1900 as a witness to the fact that this was the century that would usher in the "Kingdom of God." The exercise of science would be a primary means of creating this new age. On the other hand, Conservatives rejected the "godless" science of the liberals for their "holy" science that reinforced the inerrancy of Scripture. They, too, had the optimism that they could prevail with their rational inerrancy and usher in a new age.

 

As it turned out, the conservative agenda lost the public relations war three decades into the century. The conservative agenda became increasingly gloomy and isolationist about culture. The Great Depression sandwiched between two world wars, disillusioned many liberal Christians and eventually led to the "God is Dead" movement in the 1960s. While the liberal movement did carry some currency in the civil rights arena for a time, it soon became a fragmented mix of various ideology-driven theologies (e.g., liberation, feminist, etc.) The more conservative Christian wing re-engaged with the culture beginning in the late 1970s, but it showed little influence in moving the culture to a Christian mindset. It, too, has been fading of late.

 

The irony is that both liberal and conservative Christians neutered the transformative power of the Word of God, and thereby the Church, with their foundational approaches. The liberals reduced Scripture to little more than supplemental material on the way to discovering God. So complex and nuanced did Scripture become that only a specialized class of Christians (scholars and clergy) could be trusted with appropriate interpretations. Meanwhile, conservatives turned the Bible into a complex data collection that could only be deciphered by systematic theologies and/or clergy who could help you link all the pieces into an approved, rationally coherent system.

 

In either case, why read the Scripture for yourself? What transformative power can Scripture have when it is merely a collection of extraordinarily complex ancient documents that "might" point you to a path, or is it just a collection of theological data to be used in a theological erector set? That is where we are today.

 

(I highly recommend "Beyond Foundationalism," by Grenz and Franke, on this topic.)

 

[Index]

Comments

[will spotts]

Very interesting analysis.

A couple of observations:

the liberal approach is the same as theosophy. (i.e. It tends to emphasize the various commonalities in the religions). Theosophy is the same (on most points) as both Gnosticism and ancient paganism (as practiced by the enlightened elite -- not the masses). (This about paganism was demonstrated to me recently at the site in Bath, England -- it was very clear that the notion was that there was one "divine", and the "gods" and "goddesses" respesented either aspects of the "divine" or manifestations of some kind.)

The liberal approach may not recognize this -- and may focus on the various political emphases of its practitioners, but the underlying premise is the same -- right down to the need for an elite to be able to sift the nuances and hold the secret keys to understanding the text.

Though I have more in common with the conservative side, I have to admit, an element of logical self-contradiction enters the picture. If, as is central to the conservative approach, Scripture is to be viewed as the word of God written -- or some similar formulation -- and if this is God's revelation, and therefore, trumps all naturalistic concerns -- then why systematize it? As a Presbyterian I shock myself -- but why might Calvin write Institutes? IF THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WRITTEN WORD, then God intended it to resist systematization. Otherwise, He would have written the Institutes instead. In fact, I'm convinced that there are things deliberately included in the Bible to frustrate our logical understandings. Not that God wants obscurity -- but God does seem to want us not to rely on our own cleverness and "understanding". ("Lean not on thine own understanding"?). This applies to any of our unifying principals.

That said, I do tend to find Reformed thinking pleasing for its logical coherence, and I do find it to be a fairly faithful representation of what the Bible teaches. However, it is incomplete, and passing a test on this theology is not a (ironically enough, works based) prerequisite for salvation.

I'm also not arguing against theology -- just against our over-attachment to our own schemata. We are certainly able to understand what God intends us to understand about himself. We are not, however, able to comprehend God.

[Michael W. Kruse]

"As a Presbyterian I shock myself -- but why might Calvin write Institutes? IF THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WRITTEN WORD, then God intended it to resist systematization. Otherwise, He would have written the Institutes instead."

Exactly! Well said. Thanks.

I think systematic theology plays an important role in our faith but it is incomplete. I think that is what the Emergent folks are striving to understand.

I would also add here that the term "post-modern Christian" can be taken in two ways. First, as a Christian who has completely embraced postmodern philosophy. Second, as a Christian living in an age of postmodernism. I see myself as the latter and I think many Emergent types would say the same.

We inherit some good stuff from Modernism but there is also some very unhelp stuff. Postmodernism brings some much needed correction but brings its own baggage as well. As a disciple of Jesus, being salt in the world, I want to keep the best of both and discard the worst of both.

I will have more to say in some posts in about a week or so on this topic. Thanks again for some great observtions.

[will spotts]

"I would also add here that the term "post-modern Christian" can be taken in two ways. First, as a Christian who has completely embraced postmodern philosophy. Second, as a Christian living in an age of postmodernism. I see myself as the latter and I think many Emergent types would say the same."

This is a very good point. I think the first is the issue I have more problems with. There seems to be a great gulf fixed between what Christianity teaches and what post-modern philosophy embraces. Then there is the difference between academic philosphy and working philosophy. I think the second definition applies more to trying to respond to this "working philosphy".