henrycenter.tiu.edu€¦ · Web viewAs a public theologian, Carl F. H. Henry sought to bring Evangelical conviction to bear on a full range of human endeavor. His writings are a paradigm

Jeff Hardin - Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin-MadisonWhat I Wish I'd Asked Dr. Henry: What Scientists Wish Theologians Knew...and Why Scientists Need Theologians

Abstract: As a public theologian, Carl F. H. Henry sought to bring Evangelical conviction to bear on a full range of human endeavor. His writings are a paradigm for evangelical theologians engaging science. As a recently graduated biology student entering an M.Div. program, I had one phone call with Dr. Henry, which was an opportunity missed. With the benefit of hindsight, Evangelical seminary training, and a career in professional biology, I’d like to engage in a “virtual dialogue” with this Founding Father of American Evangelicalism (and Henry Center namesake) about frustrations and opportunities in the dialogue between scientists and theologians about Creation.

It is a profound honor to be attending a conference sponsored by the Henry Center. The Center’s namesake, Carl F.H. Henry, is a bit of a hero for me, and I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to engage with Dr. Henry on a key subject for the Creation Project: God’s revelation in His Word and His world. Unlike many writing for the first year of the Dabar Conference, I am a professional scientist. In keeping with my experimentalist bent, this very “drafty” draft is truly an experiment. I have never written a paper of this sort, so I hope that the theologians and biblical scholars among us will excuse my theological shortcomings, and that the scientists among us will excuse the style of this paper. After all, scientists “give talks”, whereas my Humanities colleagues “read papers”.

I am the chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin, where I have been on the faculty for 25 years. My own scientific research involves a small, rather famous roundworm (Caenorhabditis elegans) that has advantages similar to fruit flies for genetic dissection of early embryonic development. For me, Jesus has always been the Lord of life –Lord of eternal life1 and Lord of the resplendent biological life teeming on this planet2. Nevertheless, I am keenly aware that many – including many evangelical theologians – feel far less sanguine about this issue. For many, modern biology is in ineluctable conflict with biblical Christianity. My hope for the Creation Project is that it would promote the sort of careful, thoughtful, constructive dialogue the Evangelical Church in the United States sorely needs.

To see more specifically how I have come to attend this conference, however, a bit more autobiography is in order. As I have recently explained3, I have never experienced the sort of deep conflict between science and Christian faith that many Evangelicals have experienced. My parents had abandoned any sort of traditional Christianity when I was in grade school, so I was not raised as a Christian, but I did develop a profound sense of wonder at the natural word. As a child I committed to becoming a scientist. As a rather annoying middle schooler, however, my life was irrevocably altered. At the invitation of a classmate, in 1972 I attended a series of Southern Baptist youth revival meetings in 1972 - I had an overwhelming sense of my need for a Savior, and in dramatic fashion turned to Christ. After surviving high school, I went off to

1 John 10:10.2 See, for example, Psalm 104; Job 12:7-10; 40:15-41:333 Hardin, J. “Embracing the Lord of Life”. In Applegate, K. and Stump, J., eds. How I Changed My Mind About Evolution. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016, pp. 54-61.

Hardin – What I Wish I’d Asked Dr. Henry

college at Michigan State University. I wanted to be a physicist, but my struggles with solving electrostatics problems quickly disabused me of that notion, and I pursued a premedical curriculum, changing my majors to Zoology and German.

As is true for many students, my spiritual life plummeted by the end of my freshman year. Thankfully, through the help of loving people in the local Campus Crusade for Christ student ministry, I began to follow Christ in earnest midway through my sophomore year. I was also fully immersed in biology courses. My favorites were embryonic development, comparative physiology, and comparative anatomy. I became an undergraduate teaching assistant in the last of these while I was a student leader in the local Campus Crusade for Christ ministry. My experiences in biology never generated debilitating cognitive dissonance4, but I was too immersed in campus ministry and ticking the boxes I would need to enter M.D./Ph.D. programs to develop a comprehensive approach to thinking about science and Christian faith. I assumed that there would be ample time for that later. I was right, but not in the way I had envisioned.

In my senior year of college, I received offers from some very good schools to pursue an M.D.//Ph.D. It is a long, surprising, and exciting story of God’s calling, but after attending a conference and after much prayer ultimately I decided to turn down those offers to pursue a Master of Divinity degree. It was in preparation for seminary that I had my one – and only – personal encounter with Dr. Henry.

Calling Dr. Henry: Why I am HereMany of us can probably recall an interaction with someone famous in which we wish we could rewind the tape of history and edit the event with the benefit of hindsight. One such event for me came after I had graduated from Michigan State University, while I was trying to raise financial support to attend seminary. The sister of a friend had suggested I contact someone she knew in the Washington, D.C. area, where I grew up, through her involvement with the Christian relief agency, World Vision. Unbeknownst to me, that “someone” was Carl F.H. Henry. I called the number I had been given, and I eventually reached the good doctor, completely oblivious to his stature as a towering figure in the history of American Evangelicalism. We exchanged pleasantries, and he very politely explained that he had many financial and ministry commitments, and could not help in my fund raising. I hung up, thinking little of what had just happened. I was getting used to turn downs! Only later would I realize what an opportunity had just slipped past.

Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I am extremely myopic, both in the actual, physical sense, and in the more metaphorical one. But this exchange with Carl F.H. Henry is perhaps one of the most egregious cases of myopia in my adult life. What an opportunity missed! With the benefit of hindsight, of course, I have slightly better vision.

Meeting Dr. Henry: A Seminary DiscoveryIt was in seminary that I met Dr. Henry properly – intellectually, if not physically – for the first time. I attended the International School of Theology, a conservative, broadly evangelical

4 This Although not true for me, this is a common experience in among today’s students. Although a bit dated, see Rockenbach, A. (2007). “A Portrait of Evangelical Christian Students In College”. Available online at: http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Bryant.pdf

2

2


seminary affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ in San Bernardino, California. I threw myself into biblical languages, biblical studies, and theology. In those days there were battles afoot in evangelical seminaries. The biggest involved the nature of the Scriptures: how were they authoritative? What was inerrancy? My school subscribed heartily to the fairly recently issued Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy5. Modern developments on this topic are beyond the scope of this white paper6. I would simply point out that I emerged from seminary committed to biblical authority, and remain so to this day.7

During seminary I also became convinced of the importance of bringing biblically based approaches to pressing societal issues. My M.Div. thesis dealt with Christian approaches to abortion, and it was there that I first encountered Carl F.H. Henry. His Christian Personal Ethics and Aspects of Christian Social Ethics8 were my first exposure to thoughtful, philosophically and biblically informed approached to knotty ethical issues, and faithful Christian vocational stewardship. To my great embarrassment, of course, I also realized the stature of the man I had spoken with on the phone that previous summer.

Channeling Dr. Henry: the Importance of Evangelical Science/Faith DialogueMy career trajectory is opposite to that of most professionals in the science/faith dialogue. Many began as scientists and then later pursued theological training9. My life moved in the opposite direction. While in seminary, I met the woman who would become my wife, Susie. She worked in the campus ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ, and had moved to the University of

5 See one of my seminary texts: Geisler, N., ed. (1980). Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.6 This is an exciting area of modern Evangelical scholarship that several participants in this conference have actively – and directly – helped to shape. For a compendium of viewpoints, see J. Merrick and S. M. Garrett (eds). Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. This is not the place for a nuanced discussion of adjectival descriptors applied to the Bible such as “inspiration”, “authority”, and “inerrancy”, but I am comfortable with the views I received in my seminary days with the addenda afforded by newer developments such as speech-act theory, etc. See the basic definitions in Walton, J.H. and Sandy, D.B. (2013). The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. I am in agreement with the definition they suggest from David Dockery: “The Bible properly interpreted in light of [the] culture and communication developed by the time of its composition will be shown to be completely true (and therefore not false) in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the author, in all matters relating to God and his creation.” (cited in Walton and Sandy, p. 12).7 Some have felt that one cannot hold the view of creation that I do, known as Evolutionary Creation, and simultaneously subscribe to inerrancy. See, for example, Geisler, N. and Roach, W.C. (2011). Defending Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, pp. 349-364. Geisler and Roach devote an entire Appendix to this topic, singling out the BioLogos Foundation. In the first paragraph they state, “The members are intractably committed to theistic evolution and thereby opposed to the historic Christian stand on the inerrancy of the Bible.” (p. 349). It is true that the BioLogos Foundation has opted for a more British-style statement regarding biblical authority (see http://biologos.org/about-us), but the statement of Geisler and Roach is surprising to me, since I am the Chair of the Board of BioLogos and hold both doctrines, and since many members of the Board and Advisory Board hold views similar to my own. Of relevance is this comment by J.I. Packer: “I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and I maintain it in print, but I can’t see anything in Scripture, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, that bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the other…”. Packer, J.I., 1978. The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem. Oxford: Oxford-Latimer House, p. 5.8 Christian Personal Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 (paperback edition); Aspects of Christian Social Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 (paperback edition).9Perhaps the best known recent examples in the UK are elementary particle physicist John Polkinghorne and molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath.

3

3


California-Berkeley. As I visited her during our courtship, I felt a strong call to pursue doctoral work in the sciences, and enrolled in the Biophysics Ph.D. program at UC-Berkeley, where I developed my lifelong passion for understanding embryonic development and my calling as a Christian who is a scientist. Eventually the Lord led us to Duke University for my postdoctoral work, and finally, for the last quarter century, to a faculty position at the University of Wisconsin.

I recognize that I am an endangered species. As an Evangelical scientist, Elaine Howard Ecklund’s survey, in which I was a respondent, places me in a tiny minority of my peers10. As someone who returned to science after seminary, I am perhaps even more of an oddity. There is no doubt here that Dr. Henry provided some vocational inspiration that has stayed with me throughout my career. In Aspects of Christian Social Ethics he says,

…work for the believer is a sacred stewardship, and in fulfilling his job he will either accredit or violate the Christian witness. When viewed as a priestly ministry, man’s labors thus become “good works” that radiate from a spiritually dedicated life.11

I pray that my life continues to “radiate from a spiritually dedicated life”. It is certainly true that a strong sense of Christian vocation is one reason that I feel a special obligation to contribute to dialogue with my Evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ regarding biology and Christian faith. It is also why I am willing to dip my theological toes into some very deep water as part of this conference.

Surveying Dr. Henry: Science as Epistemically Inferior but Technologically UsefulCarl F.H. Henry’s approach to the theology/science interface is typical of at least one strand of Evangelicalism, and his key writings on the subject exemplify several issues that have at times encouraged and at other times exasperated practicing scientists who are Christians. As an affectionate admirer at a distance and as a scientist, I hope that my comments will be helpful to current and emerging generations of theologians and biblical scholars as they engage in dialogue with scientists. Since I am a biologist, I will address some of my comments to the topic of evolution. Recognize, however, that the vast canopy of creation includes many other fascinating topics beyond biological evolution.

The decisive nature of biblical revelation makes it a reliable source of truthSpace does not permit me to delve into much of Henry’s writing; interested readers looking for synopses are urged to look elsewhere.12 What sets Henry apart to me is his calling as a public theologian. One of the central preoccupying questions of his life was, How can Evangelical Christians engage with and yet challenge a wider culture that does not share its core, biblical commitments? For Henry, the starting point for answering this key question is the cognitive

10 Ecklund, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Evangelical scientists comprise only 4% of all science professional at major research universities.11 Aspects, p. 31.12 For summaries of Henry’s theology, see Fackre, G.(1984). “Carl F.H. Henry”. In A Handbook of Christian Theologians, enlarged edition (D.G. Peerman and M. Marty, eds), 583-607; James Emery White, J.E. (1994). What Is Truth?: A Comparative Study of the Positions of Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, Carl F. H. Henry, Donald Bloesch, Millard Erickson. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 85-111; Trueman, C.R. (2000). Admiring the Sistine Chapel: Reflections on Carl F.H. Henry's God, Revelation and Authority. Themelios 25.2: 48-58.

4

4


reliability of Scripture. Many hundreds of pages of God, Revelation, and Authority (hereafter GRA) are devoted to defending the truthfulness of biblical revelation, especially Volumes III-V. While many of the presenting societal issues Henry addresses are no longer with us (e.g., the hippy counterculture of the 1960s and 70s), many others remain (e.g., the fragmentation of knowledge and the absence of moral anchorage points), and so parts of GRA still seem fresh and relevant today, especially with the advent of social media adding to the inundation of mass media13

The topic at hand is Henry’s view of science, however. Ultimately, Henry privileges special revelation over other forms of knowledge, including science. To see why he does so requires delving into Volume I of GRA, which deals with prolegomena. Lest one think this is dry, many of the opening chapters show Henry’s journalistic flourishes, and model how a theologian might engage with pop culture and larger intellectual trends14. One of Henry’s central foci is the notion and locus of truth, as he lays out in Volume I of GRA. He takes several chapters to review failed attempts to find such a locus in anything but the inerrant Word of God. Eventually, in Chapter 13, Henry provides this key synopsis:

Divine revelation is the source of all truth, the truth of Christianity included; reason is the instrument for recognizing it; Scripture is its verifying principle; logical consistency is a negative test for truth and coherence is a subordinate test. The task of Christian theology is to exhibit the content of biblical revelation as an orderly whole.15

Henry clearly favors a correspondence theory of truth, and he is a foundationalist (which is why he places “coherence” in a subordinate position in the statement above). For Henry, the perspicacity of Scripture is sufficient, due to God-given cognitive categories in the human mind, for anyone to understand the basic message of the Scriptures16. Refusal to do so is just that for Henry – an act of the will – rather than a noetic inability due to darkening of human reason. Most importantly for this discussion, Henry’s approach is deductive; the doctrines of the orthodox Christian faith are a starting point, which can be verified by searching the Scriptures.17

General revelation is real, but humans cannot follow the evidence due to sin

13 See Trueman, ibid, for further discussion of aspects of Henry’s work that do and do not have staying power.14 Henry has a penchant for turns of phrase; sometimes these can be funny, if a bit biting. As one example, in describing the founding of Christianity Today, Henry says, “A handful of us launched Christianity Today in 1956 to give the Christian Century a run for its prejudices.” See “Trumpeting God’s Word to a Nation in Decision” in Henry, C.F.H. (1984). The Christian Mindset in a Secular Society. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, p. 24.15 GRA Chapter 13 (Kindle Locations 4931-4932). One can only guess what Henry would have done with Postmodernism, or other “creative anti-realist” approaches to truth. See Plantinga, A. (1984). “Advice to Christian Philosophers”. Online at: http://www.faithandphilosophy.com/article_advice.php. See also Carson, D.A. (2002). Maintaining Scientific and Christian Truths in a Postmodern World. Science & Christian Belief 14,107–122.16 “If the truth of revelation cannot be known prior to commitment to Christ, then men cannot be culpable for its rejection”. GRA Vol. I Ch. 14 (Kindle Locations 4931-4932).17 It is interesting, if a bit off topic, to compare Henry to Charles Hodge, whose fundamental approach was inductive. Hodge famously says that “The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his store-house of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches, is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches.” Hodge, C. Systematic Theology, Introduction I.5.A. The definitive recent historical treatment of Hodge and the Old Princeton theologians in dialogue with science is Gundlach, B. (2013). Process and Providence: The Evolution Question at Princeton, 1845-1929. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

5

5


Given the importance Henry places on propositional special revelatory information, it is not surprising that he is deeply suspicious of approaches to cognitive assurance outside the Scriptures, especially those rivals that lie in the long train from early positivism to destructive higher biblical criticism to logical positivism.18 Empiricism is fundamentally limited for Henry, because it must assume the intelligibility of the universe, but cannot prove this assumption19. Henry is especially skeptical of post-Enlightenment epistemological overreaching, which he believes massively overestimates human ability to perceive truth.20 Importantly for this discussion, however, this does not mean that Henry denies the possibility of knowledge of God through His creation. Clearly aware of the fierce debate between Emil Brunner and Karl Barth about natural revelation21, he sides with Barth on rejecting “natural theology”, but against Barth in restricting all revelation to special revelation. For Henry, general revelation is taught in Scripture, and he affirms that all humans can access this revelation:

…while revealed religion insists that man as created is inescapably conscious of God and of his transcendently ordered cosmos … his response to the revealed God known in his revelation is broken and evasive. Man can indeed know the God of creation and created reality— not exhaustively, to be sure, but nonetheless truly…man even as sinner is aware of the living God and of created reality as a divinely given order…even if he throws himself athwart this revelation and responds to it obliquely.22

Such statements seem to suggest that study of general revelation can lead to real, if limited, understanding (“not exhaustively…but nonetheless truly”), and hence Henry seems to validate the possibility of scientific exploration of the created order. However, humans have an inability – due to sinfulness – to grasp the full significance of divine disclosure.

The tentative nature of science makes it an unreliable source of truth Elsewhere Henry is less sanguine about science. Despite the reality of general revelation, Henry is no cheerleader for naïve notions of what science tells us. At times this leads him to decry the facile scientific mindset of modern society:

Today, however, many accept not the Spirit-breathed Word of God but the experimentally based pronouncements of science as the one and only avenue to truth and life.23

At other times Henry seems to allow some value to scientific knowledge, if pursued in proper context:18 Henry’s negative assessment of Neo-orthodoxy, especially the brand offered by Karl Barth, should also be seen in this light. See many chapters in GRA, but also this much briefer, earlier summary: Henry, C.F.H. (1966). Frontiers in Modern Theology: A Critique of Current Theological Trends. Chicago: Moody Press, Ch. 4.19 “The scientific and historical approaches to meaning thrive on secretly negotiated lend-lease arrangements on which non-Christian scholars arbitrarily refuse to pay overdue interest rates and they ultimately deny any indebtedness to the theistic view.” GRA, Vol. I Ch. 14 (Kindle Locations 4970-4972).20 Compare Carl Trueman on this point: “Henry's entire work – of which GRA is the greatest single example – must be understood as an attempt to restate conservative Protestant theology in a manner which takes seriously the epistemological concerns of the Enlightenment without surrendering the content and truth-claims of orthodox Christianity.” Trueman, op cit.21 For more on this issue see the epic point/counterpoint reprinted in English in Brunner, E. and Barth, K. (2002). Natural Theology: Comprising Nature and Grace by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the reply No! by Dr. Karl Barth. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Also see Holder, R. (2012). The Heavens Declare: Natural Theology and the Legacy of Karl Barth. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.22 GRA, Vol. I Ch. 9 (Kindle Locations 3444-3450).23 GRA Vol. I Ch. 1 (Kindle Locations 390-391).

6

6


The reliability of any and all affirmations of science ultimately derives, not from limited experimental evidence, but from God's ongoing plan and preservation of the universe.24

To be sure, all the evidence an empirical scientist claims for his theories, insofar as he is in touch with reality, is also unacknowledged evidence for God. But God must not first be arbitrarily set aside…Human existence is not primarily a vocation in which the modern experimentalist addresses questions to the universe. It is one, rather, in which created existence, and the God of creation, addresses us.25

In these and similar passages, Henry allows for some positive inputs from scientific inquiry, but he clearly views such work as very limited in terms of arriving at “final truth”, to use one of his favorite phrases. In such passages it is difficult to disentangle Henry’s pique at the hubris of scientific naturalism from a sense of science’s systemic limitations.

Sometimes Henry’s assessment of science seems more negative still. In GRA, Vol. I, Ch. 10, “Theology and Science”, Henry seems not merely annoyed at the misappropriation of science by moderns. He wishes to privilege theology over against scientific knowledge, which he views as shifting and provisional. Here he marshals more radical criticisms leveled by mid-twentieth century philosophers of science (including Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend):

There is a profounder reason why science gives no knowledge of nature, viz., the fact that its methodology cannot yield more than revisable opinion…The fact is that empirical science has no firm basis whatever on which to raise objections to Christianity, not because scientific and historical concerns are irrelevant to revelation and faith, but because scientists must allow for possible exceptions to every rule they affirm, and for the empirical vulnerability of the rules themselves.26

Science today makes no claim to tell how reality is actually structured, nor does it presume to discern “the laws of nature.” Instead it ventures only to depict “how things work,” and that merely in terms of statistical averaging.27

Such pessimistic passages underscore Henry’s view regarding the provisional nature of scientific investigation. Science is no match for biblically revealed information.

The power of science lies in its technological utilityIf science never arrives at “final truth” (to use a favorite phrase of Henry’s), what can it accomplish? In Henry’s mind it is clearly useful:

While its affirmations are necessarily tentative and revisable, scientific observation is highly useful. Christian confidence in Scripture as the revelational norm of truth does not require us to reject the utility of science.28

One finds this sort of language in several places in Henry’s writing. In general, Henry does not seem to place much sacramental value on basic science, i.e., science rarely seems to present an opportunity for worship of the Creator for Henry. Henry is keenly aware of the practical power of science, however, but also its complete inability to provide moral guidance: “[S]cience is

24 “The Ambiguities of Scientific Breakthrough” in Henry, C.F.H., ed. (1978). Horizons of Science: Christian Scholar Speak Out. San Francisco: Harper & Row, pp. 102-103.25 GRA, Vol. I Ch. 9 (Kindle Locations 3466-3472).26 GRA, Vol. I Ch. 10 (Kindle Locations 3764-3765 and 3769-3772).27 GRA Vol. I Ch. 2 (Kindle Locations 758-759).28 “Ambiguities”, pp. 102-103.

7

7


powerless to identify moral norms or final truth; scientific research asks what is experimentally possible, not what is morally permissible.”29

Evolution’s most important danger is as a rival worldviewOne of the key issues in modern science for Henry is, not surprisingly, evolution. Henry’s clearest work in this area is from an earlier period than GRA, in a chapter for an edited volume from 1955:

Theology is the science of God; evolution, the doctrine of change. How theology and evolution intersect remains among the anxious questions of our disturbed generation… The fate of the West, of modern civilization itself has at stake in the conclusion… The basic tension is still between the concept of a personal Creator-God and that of an impersonal chance process. To resolve that debate delineates, in truth, the very destiny of our century.30

What is clear from a statement like this and the dramatic conflict it conjures, is how Henry views evolution. First and foremost, it is a rival Weltanschauung. In a clear polemical move in this passage, Henry deliberately pits Christianity and evolution against one another by describing theology as a “science” (in the older sense prior to the 19th century, i.e., it can lead to genuine knowledge) and evolution as a “doctrine”. This is not to say that Henry does not recognize that evolution more narrowly considered is an aspect of natural science, but it is to say that his chief concerns are ideological. The winner of this ideological battle is crucial for Henry:

Any discussion of theology and evolution first of all must always bring into clear focus the question of competitive ultimates. A Christian view of man and the universe must always oppose any system of thought, ancient or modern, that deserts God in its devotion to process.31

One of the key reason that Henry sees evolution as such a “competitive ultimate” is that it seems to exclude God from its “process”, making it fundamentally dysteleological:

By demoting God to merely First Cause, Darwin cancelled the principle of a personal divine government and providence in nature, and deferred completely to the mechanical principle of natural selection.32

This issue is of course not new to Henry. Most memorably perhaps, Charles Hodge came to the same conclusion at the end of What Is Darwinism?: “What is Darwinism? It is atheism.”33 What Hodge of course meant by this is that in the absence any room for teleology, Darwinism seems to fly in the face of God’s providential activity and the Christian view that all of history is “going somewhere” as it moves toward the eschaton. Henry echoes these themes:

A system that denies that personality has decisive significance in the origin of the universe and considers personality but an accidental byproduct of blind and unthinking forces can hardly affirm that nature specially defers to man or that man is bound by enduring duties. The

29 Henry, “Trumpeting “, op cit., , p. 16.30 Henry, C.F.H. (1955). “Theology and Evolution”. In Mixter, R.L. ed (1955). Evolution and Christian Thought Today. London: Paternoster Press, p. 190.31 Ibid, p. 200.32 Ibid.33 Hodge, C. (1874). What Is Darwinism? New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co. The famous quote is on p. 177.Available online at: https://archive.org/details/cu31924024755567; reprinted in Hodge, C. What Is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion. Noll, M. and Livingstone, D., eds (1994). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

8

8


consistent outcome of naturalistic theory is not a special status for mankind but the essential purposelessness and meaninglessness of human existence.34

If this is true, then humans have but one choice: to impose their own arbitrary values on a valueless cosmos in an attempt to create meaning:

The drift of twentieth century learning can be succinctly summarized in one statement: Instead of recognizing Yahweh as the source and stipulator of truth and the good, contemporary thought reduces all reality to impersonal processes and events, and insists that man himself creatively imposes upon the cosmos and upon history the only values that they will ever bear.35

In the end, this is Henry’s fundamental issue with evolution: it seems to acquire, as it did for Hodge, a non-theistic, dysteleological tint.

Evolution has equivocal evidential supportAlthough Henry’s chief concern with science generally and evolution in particular are their susceptibility to cooption for worldview construction, he also expresses doubts as to the evidential support for evolution. He feels that there is little direct observational support for evolution. Writing at a time before the wealth of data available through genome sequencing became available, he focuses on paleontology. The paleontological record, according to Henry, is particularly lacking, and mainly shows stasis and absence of transitional forms predicted by evolution.36. Given his presuppositional approach in general, Henry is even more sensitive to what he perceives as the assumption of the “fact” of evolution:

A most vexing task for the remaining half of the twentieth century will be a critical analysis of this "phantom fact" so uniformly accepted during the first half.37

In sections, such as this from 1955, in which Henry delves into evidence for evolution, one might then expect a careful analysis of the data in support of evolution. While such an undertaking would be difficult for a theologian to be sure, this is not Henry’s basic approach. His main tack is to devote a great deal of time to quoting various opinions about evolution. 38 In these sections, Henry mainly seems to be searching for opinions that bolster his own about evolution. One can see this from how his sources are assembled. Sources run the gamut, ranging from lay ministry books to philosopher Will Durant to physical scientists to popular biology books to statements from selected professional biologists. In GRA a favorite was Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who in Henry’s mind weakens the standard version of evolutionary theory.39 Regarding human evolution. in both GRA and earlier writing, Henry finds the hominin fossil record to be unconvincing. This seems to be more of an ex post facto analysis, however: given his approach, Henry has already concluded that human evolution is incompatible with Scripture, mainly because he believes that his deductive inferences demand a specially created primal pair.40 Here

34 Henry, C.F.H.“The Crisis of Modern Learning” in The Christian Mindset in a Secular Society, p. 84.35 Ibid.36 Ibid, p. 207-8. See also GRA Vol. VI, Ch. 8.37 “Theology and Evolution”, op cit., p. 203.38 Space does not permit case-by-case analysis of Henry’s approach here. Interested readers are encouraged to read these directly. See, for example, “Theology and Evolution”, op cit., pp. 201-203 and GRA Vol. VI, Ch. 8 and 9.39 GRA Vol. VI Ch. 8. As an important note I will return to below, Gould was an absolutely ardent evolutionary biologist completely committed to evolutionary mechanism.40 “Although the Genesis creation account does not rule out the existence of manlike forms prior to man’s creation, it provides no basis for postulating an animal lineage for man.” GRA Vol. VI Ch. 9 (Kindle Locations 73847-73849).

9

9


again, Henry admixes statements from a variety of Christian writers who have no obvious expertise in the area at hand.41 My point is not to debate the detailed interpretation of fossil evidence here, but rather to point out that Henry does not seem especially interested in delving into the particulars himself.

SummaryAll Evangelicals resonate with Carl F.H. Henry’s desire to defend biblically based, orthodox Christian faith from its opponents. However, Henry has strong hesitancy about science as a way of knowing. He is especially concerned with the privileging of empirical science since the 19th century. From an Evangelical perspective, Henry’s approach to science is entirely understandable, especially when worldview construction under the pretext of natural science is involved. However, it is also clear that Henry uses mid- to late-twentieth century philosophers’ nibbling around the edges of the modernist trust in natural science as a debating tool to defend propositional revelation as the key to any system of knowledge. When he does so, he seems to have less interest in the actual results of science; instead, he seems to focus on how it is deficient as an arbiter of knowledge. In such moments he seems to have little interest in how science might positively contribute to – rather than detract from – Evangelical theology.

Challenging Dr. Henry: What Scientists Wish Theologians KnewAs an Evangelical who is a biologist, I would dearly love to board a time machine and go back to the day of my phone conversation with Dr. Henry. I would have many questions, a few of which I sketch in the following sections. A key point I would raise with Dr. Henry is that he and other theologians would do well to interact with actual biologists doing actual research, particularly (although perhaps not only) the small number of Evangelical Christians in biology.42 I think if Henry could do so today, some of his thinking would be positively shaped by the encounter. Dr. Henry would find several things to be true about actual biologists who are Christians. I list a few of these here.

Biologists think their work has value beyond mere technical utilityFirst, reading Carl Henry as a biologist is jarring – and quite frankly– disappointing, given his immense scholarship. Henry’s debating style style, is science really just an historically ephemeral, at best technologically useful, epistemologically poor cousin to the “queen of the sciences”? That is certainly not what I believe my laboratory team is doing every day as we try to extract the secrets that embryos hold. Since another presenter has written an in-depth paper on epistemological issues in natural science43, I will not try to repeat that effort here. Suffice it to

41 One example will suffice here: “The straightline evolutionary model that prevailed until 1970, one which projected man’s origin in terms of ‘a progression from ape to ape-man to primitive man to modern man,’ and affirmed the australopithecines to be intermediate creatures between apes and man, has collapsed, as Edward Lugenbeal observes, in a single decade (‘The missing link is missing again,’ Ministry, Mar., 1978, p. 25). It has done so, moreover, because of debatable assumptions and changing interpretations and acknowledged misinterpretations of fossil hominids.” GRA Vol. VI Ch. 9 (Kindle Locations 73507-73511).42 Recognizing a general need for such interactions, the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), with support from the John Templeton Foundation, has initiated a Science for Seminaries project, piloted at several seminaries across the country, including Multnomah Biblical Seminary, Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, and Regent University School of Divinity. I have been invllved in producing short film clips for this project. See http://www.scienceforseminaries.org43 See the paper by Lydia Jaeger at this meeting.

10

10


say that most informed scientists are critical realists. They recognize that the process of scientific investigation has inherently provisional aspects, and that sometimes its methods provide indirect information about creation, but they are convinced that the phenomena they study are real, as John Polkinghorne affirms:

The naturally convincing explanation of the success of science is that it is gaining a tightening grasp of an actual reality. The true goal of scientific endeavor is understanding the structure of the physical world, an understanding which is never complete but ever capable of further improvement. The terms of that understanding are dictated by the way things are.44

Instrumentalism or social constructivism are interesting anti-realist takes on science, but I have never run across an actual scientist who holds them. One of things that is true about scientists is that are empirical, as Alister McGrath notes

Scientific realism is an empirical notion, in that it is grounded in an actual encounter with reality. Its justification is not to be found in a priori philosophical reflections, but in a posteriori engagement with the natural world itself. [italics his] 45

Christians who are scientists are committed to an approach in which their work is tied to the contingency of the world as God has given it. One thing this means is that the best scientists have profound respect for the givenness of the world. Trying to understand the world as they find it – rather than as they might imagine it to be or as they might, a priori, assume it to be – is crucial.

Taking a contingent creation as seriously as possible is important for the integrity of the scientific process itself, but for another very important reason: it is an act of worship to the Creator. The well-known first six verses of Psalm 19 say this:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

In them he has set a tent for the sun, 5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,

and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. 6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them,

and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

The Psalmist luxuriates in the creation. For the Psalmist, the regularity of the heavenly bodies provides unspoken testimony to God's awesome power and faithfulness. The heavenly bodies are not capricious deities, but the One True God's handiwork. Although the heavenly bodies do not speak in a human tongue, they nevertheless speak powerfully in their own way. Indeed, they declare God’s glory, his בוד� kabod) ,כ ), His gravitas. The world shouts His praise incessantly.46 This has several implications. First, nature is objective; it is real. Second, it is intelligible. Its regularities are subject to study. This provides a rational basis for natural science. And finally, it has contingent independence. For the Psalmist, the world is akin to a unique work of art. As such, it can and indeed – begs – to be studied on its own terms. For a scientist who is a Christian,

44 Polkinghorne, J. (1986). One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 22.45 McGrath, A.E. (2004). The Science of God. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans., p. 127. McGrath has a helpful discussion of critical realism in Chapter 3, “Reality”.46 The verbs are present tense, indicating an ongoing process.

11

11


science is in a way an exercise in art appreciation. As such, science is not merely discovery, but can be worship. This doxological element is something that Henry seems to miss.Psalm 19 goes on, of course, extolling the special revelation of the תורה (torah) (v. 7-10). The same God whose creation bubbles over with praise has made His will known in the Scriptures. YHWH’s world and His Word are two “books” that both proclaim His majesty. Article 2 of the Belgic Confession puts this memorably47:

We know God by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God… Second, God makes himself known to us more clearly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for God’s glory and for our salvation.

These two “books” provide very different – and complementary – information about their author. As two books with differing genres by the same human author must be taken on their own terms and allowed to speak in their own language, so these two books must be allowed to speak, each with its own voice. This suggests a model different from Dr. Henry’s: rather than thinking in terms of superiority and inferiority, it may be more appropriate to think in terms of unique vocalizations. Science gives voice to a unique revelation of God, albeit limited by its spectacularly successful methodology and non-propositional content.

Biologists think there is substantial evidence for evolutionOne of the ways in which the creation seems to be speaking has to do with the fundamental relatedness of living things. In Volume VI of GRA, Carl F.H. Henry seems to suggest that evolution is a “theory in crisis”. Indeed, GRA Volume VI, Chapter 8 is entitled “The Crisis of Evolutionary Theory”. In particular, Henry quotes paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould at several points to suggest that this is the case. I was puzzled by this approach in GRA, for several reasons that I would like to bring up with Dr. Henry were he here today.

First, it simply is not the case that evolution is regarded as “a theory in crisis” among practicing scientists. The vast majority of practicing scientists find the evidence for evolution non-controversial.48 Although Dr. Henry does not suggest this, some Evangelical theologians49 and ministry leaders50 have suggested that one reason for this acceptance among scientists like me who are in the tiny 4% minority who are Evangelical Christians is because of a need for respect by peers. While I will confess to lack of boldness in evangelism and in several other areas, in my own case this is simply not the case for a simple reason. Most biomedical bench scientists like myself are funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The fact is that we need never

47 See https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession48 Percentage of actively working PhD trained members of the American Association of the Advancement of Science who believe that humans have evolved over time (when restricted to scientists in biology/medicine, the percentage stays the same). Pew Research Center, “An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views” (July 23, 2015). http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/ - See more at: http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/is-evolution-a-theory-in-crisis#sthash.vrh3GONs.dpuf49 For example, Geisler and Roach, op cit., p. 355, in discussing BioLogos, say this: “Peer pressure is powerful pressure. The desire to be accepted is a very human trait. This is no different in academic circles. In fact, evangelical, including theistic evolutionists, too often trade orthodoxy for academic respectability.”50 See, for example, https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/peer-pressure-and-truth/. See also http://www.lutheranscience.org/home/180015283/180015283/180153808/Journal%202003-TheisticEvolution1.pdf

12

12

https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/peer-pressure-and-truth/


invoke evolutionary theory in our research. I am an Evolutionary Creationist because the evidence is compelling, and because I am committed to allowing God to speak through His Word and His world.

Second, contra Dr. Henry, the evidence for the common descent of organisms continues to grow. Rather than take time to outline the basics of evolution here, I encourage interested readers to sample the wonderfully clear series of blog posts by Dennis Venema51 or several books by Evangelical Christians of deep faith52. Newer evidence, added to that in Darwin’s own day53 has made the evidence overwhelming to the vast majority of biologists. Wherever one turns in analyzing this data, it provides powerful evidence for common ancestry. New fossil finds continue to fill in gaps in the fossil record. From the sequences of intermediates in the evolution of whales54 to the transition from fish to amphibians55 to what are now mundane discoveries of therapods with feathers56, these fossil finds have continued to strengthen the evidence from Darwin’s time. There is impressive evidence for formation of new species, with new examples emerging constantly.57 Finally, modern genetics provides even more impressive “molecular fossils” in our DNA58: (1) genetic family trees based on DNA sequences59; (2) proteins used to control embryonic development (like the fruit flies I maligned in graduate school!) retained in humans60; (3) precisely shared patterns of “pseudogenes” (genes that have lost their functions

51 For a wonderfully clear explanation of evolution, see Denis Venema’s Evolution Basics series on the BioLogos web site: http://biologos.org/blog/series/evolution-basics. Rather than force readers to wade through journal articles in the primary literature that may be difficult for some to access, I will refer to blog posts in this series, mainly because they are (a) clear and (b) incredibly easy to access and read.52 There are many books that could be cited here, but here are a few: Falk, D.R. (2006). Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the World of Faith and Biology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; Collins, F.S. (2006). The Language of God: A Scientist Present Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press; Alexander, D. (2014). Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Monarch Books. Fugle, G.N. (2015). Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation-Evolution Divide. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.53 Darwin marshalled several lines of evidence to make his case: (1) transitional forms in the fossil record (for Darwin, the horse was a good example); (2) vestigial traits (like the human tailbone) that make good sense if an ancestor needed the structure; (3) island biogeography, i.e., the idea that variations of organisms on nearby isolated islands make the most sense if they came from a common ancestor; (4) homologies: these are conserved structures that are best explained through common ancestry, such as Darwin’s famous example of the human hand and the forelimbs of other mammals; and (5) the tree of life: one could construct a “family” tree based on relatedness of structures in various organisms that makes sense if they share common ancestors.54 See Evolution Basics: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-evidence-155 See Evolution Basics: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/evolution-basics-assembling-vertebrate-body-plans-part-356 See Evolution Basics: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/evolution-basics-assembling-vertebrate-body-plans-part-457 The following website provides a plethora of examples of speciation events: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html 58 See a brief review of some genetics evidence at a popular level here: http://biologos.org/news/july-2015/genetics.59 See the example of GULO here: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/evolution-basics-the-placental-revolution-part-260 See, for example, my UW colleague Sean Carroll’s work: Carroll, Sean. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2006.

13

13


over time)61; and (4) precise changes in chromosomes in humans vs. other primates that are best explained by evolution62. The list could go on.

Third, that there are internal disagreements among practicing evolutionary biologists does not reflect disagreement about the basic evidence for evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, whom Henry often cites, was clearly a strong supporter of evolution. What he questioned was a particular gradualist view of how natural selection operates over time to produce changes in the form of organisms63. He never for a moment questioned that evolution has occurred. Gould is not alone. There are currently exciting, lively debates going on about the relative importance of “non-Mendelian” mechanisms in evolution. Some of this discussion was recently encapsulated in a point/counterpoint in Nature magazine64. Knowing some of the discussants, I can confirm that none of the authors doubts that evolution has occurred; the disagreements relate to how much weight to assign to various possible contributing evolutionary mechanisms. We might call this level of disagreement the “muddy, middle layer of mechanism” (MMM). Scientists often have lively debates about the MMM. The same is true in areas such as gravitational theory: no one disputes the existence of gravitation (!), but there are many debates about how gravity “works”. This is a standard part of science that Henry seems not to be fully aware of. The MMM exists in theology as well of course. Certainly the Atonement is such an example. The biblical data are clear that the Atonement is beyond dispute. How the Atonement “works” lies within the muddy middle layer of mechanism, but lack of agreement about this layer does not lead orthodox Christians to question that it is real65. Disagreements among evolutionary biologists should be viewed in the same light.

Biologists understand that “science” and “scientism” are not the sameDr. Henry is justifiably concerned that some may use evolution as a naturalistic bludgeon against Christian theism. The rise of New Atheism66 occurred after Henry did the bulk of his writing. It seems a safe bet that Henry would see the New Atheism as yet another car added to the long tired train of empiricism, given its near-cousin status to prior positivisms.67 That said, I was surprised at several key points in GRA and elsewhere that Henry seems to conflate science and scientism. As a keen philosophical thinker, it would have been helpful for Henry to distinguish carefully between science as a way of knowing and unnecessary materialistic entailments. Thankfully, most practicing scientists seem to be able to recognize this distinction clearly. After years of work to promote science/religion dialogue68, I can attest that most (although not all) of my non-Christian colleagues find the stridency of the New Atheists to be tiresome. Many secular 61 See Evolution Basics: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/signature-in-the-pseudogenes-part-162 See Alexander, p. 249 for a brief presentation.63 Gould, S.J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Bellknap Press.64 See http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.1608065 For example, see Beilby, J. and Schreiner, T.R., eds.(2006). The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.66 My colleague, the eminent historian of science, Ron Numbers, and I have recently edited a volume on the history of the Warfare thesis, including a chapter on the New Atheists. See Hardin, J. and Numbers, R., “The New Atheists” in Hardin, J., Binzley, R. and Numbers, R., eds. (2016). The Idea That Wouldn’t Die: The Warfare Between Science and Religion. Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming.67 See recently, for example, Coyne, J. (2015). Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible. New York: Viking.

14

14


scientists recognize that New Atheism involves a particular brand of scientism, with attendant metaphysical overreaching. As one example, Peter Medawar, Nobel laureate for his work on the immune system, says this:

The existence of a limit to science, is however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike questions having to do with first and last things — questions such as "How did everything begin?" "What are we all here for?" "What is the point of living?"…It is not to science, but to metaphysics, imaginative literature, or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.69

Christians who find the evidence for evolution compelling are just as savvy as Medawar. They do not feel the compulsion to adopt a worldview of materialist naturalism. Evangelical Evolutionary Creationists like myself strongly affirm God’s supernatural activity in the world and God’s providential guidance, but that God’s creative activity in the world involves evolution.70

Encouraging Dr. Henry: Why Scientists Need TheologiansThe last section directed some constructive criticisms toward Dr. Henry. Now it is time to turn the tables and address how theologians can help scientists. It is entirely unclear whether Carl Henry would have felt any need of encouragement from a theological dilettante turned scientist like me. Knowing his penchant for spicy rejoinders, I am certain Henry would have many pointed questions of his own! Nevertheless, let me suggest, in this section, some ways in which theologians can help scientists.

Theologians can model a balance between “top down” and “bottom up” approachesOne of the reasons that reading Carl Henry is a bit jarring to an experimental scientist is the profoundly presuppositional approach he takes: he starts with certain orthodox Christian doctrines and scriptural inerrancy and only after deriving his deductive results does he attempt to square his conclusions with observables. What strikes a scientist is how a priori – how “top down” – Henry’s approach is. This is not to say that scientists do not have a prioris; they most certainly do, and they can prevent openness, especially when they stray inappropriately into ossified worldviews. But in their best moments, experimental and field scientists strive to be open to correction based on data. In this sense, scientists tend to be more “bottom up”. This is something that systematic theologians might learn from. Elementary particle physicist turned theologian, John Polkinghorne, has described this issue:

Bottom up thinkers proceed from the basement of phenomena to the superstructure of theory. Top-down thinkers somehow seem to start at the tenth floor and to know from the start what are the general principles that should control the answers to the enquiry. Many theologians appear to the scientist to be of the top-down variety.71

68 My friend Ron Numbers and I co-founded the Isthmus Society at the University of Wisconsin (http://isthmussociety.org). As the geographically inspired name suggests, it is dedicated to precisely this: providing an “isthmus” of dialogue between the two large “land masses” of science and faith.69 Medawar, P. (1988). The Limits of Science. Oxford: ,Oxford University Press, p. 5970 See, for example, the BioLogos statement of faith: http://biologos.org/about-us/our-mission/71 Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. See especially Chapter 2, “Finding Truth: Science and Religion Compared”, and Chapter 4, “The Continuing Dialogues Between Science and Religion”. The quotation of from p. 84.

15

15


Now it is hard to argue that top-down approaches are not a valid starting point for theology. After all, dogmatic theologians have started with received dogmas and worked their way from those dogmas to the data for centuries. However, one of the dangers of this approach is that the data – whether they are the “data” of the Scriptures in their original context or the data the world presents to us - can become an afterthought. This danger has been nicely pointed out by D.A. Carson:

I frequently tell my doctoral students … that dissertations in the broad field of the arts disciplines, including biblical and theological disciplines, can, at the risk of slight oversimplification, be divided into two camps. In the first camp, the student begins with an idea, a fresh insight, a thesis he or she would like to test against the evidence. In the second, the student has no thesis to begin with but would like to explore the evidence in a certain domain to see exactly what is going on in a group texts and admits to uncertainty about what the outcome will be. The advantage of the first kind of thesis is that the work is exciting from the beginning and directed by the thesis that is being tested; the danger is that, unless the student takes extraordinary precautions and proves to be remarkably self-critical, the temptation to domesticate the evidence in order to defend the thesis becomes well-nigh irresistible.72

An example of the potential difficulties of this top-down approach is the case of a recent book chapter on “Adam and Science” in a compendium on the historical Adam73. In this chapter, written under the pseudonym “William Stone”, the author presents data regarding human evolution. The author tries to synthesize the data on various hominins (antecedents to modern humans), focusing on the fossil evidence. There are other things one could ask about this chapter, especially its lack of coverage of key genetic data. What is fascinating– and frankly difficult for a practicing biologist –is that the author actually does not believe the data that he presents.74 To his credit, he tries to present the data from the perspective of someone who accepts the scientific evidence that the earth is ancient. Nevertheless, this clash between the data that science yields about the world and presuppositions based on a particular reading of Scripture, are clear and – to me at least – heart-wrenching. There are other examples one could cite, including the 2007 New York Times article discussing Marcus Ross, a paleontologist who by day in his research wrote as if he believed that his results reflected real organisms from an ancient past, but whose Christian faith meant that he actually did not believe his entire PhD thesis research to be valid.75 Even Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds concur: “Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos...It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns."76 Paul Nelson, a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, holds a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Science from the University of Chicago, yet does not believe much of

72 D.A. Carson (2007). Review of Van Landingham, Chris, Judgement and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. Review of Biblical Literature 12. Available online at http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2007_review_VanLandingham.pdf73 Madueme, H. and Reeves,M., eds (2014). Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.74 That this is in fact the case, and yet the author makes a serious attempt to cover the fossil data, may explain the pseudonymous authorship. See the point/counterpoint between Stephan Williams and Hans Madueme in Themelios: Williams, S.N. (2015). Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin: A Review Essay. Themelios 40, 203-217. Madueme, H. (2015). Another Riddle without a Resolution? A Reply to Stephen Williams. Themelios 40, 218-225.75 Dean, Cornelia (2007). Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules. New York Times Feb. 12, 2007.76 Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, "Young Earth Creationism" in Three Views Views on Creation and Evolution (J.P. Moreland and J.M. Reynolds, eds). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 49.

16

16


the education he received regarding evolutionary biology while at Chicago. The power of presuppositions can be powerful indeed.

All of this argues that biblical scholars and natural scientists can help systematic theologians keep their theological “ears” closer to the “ground” of phenomena. Careful work that does not misappropriate biological data in a way that would make biologists wince will honor the book of God’s world. It will also draw biologists into shared theological discourse in ways they badly need.

Theologians have theological sophistication scientists needHaving returned to science after seminary, there are other times when I wince not due to misappropriation of biological data, but in discussions with scientists about theological topics. To paraphrase a friend, Bob Kaita, a Christian and plasma physicist at Princeton University, scientists have a PhD-level science education and a 4th grade-level theological education. This means they will often not understand ideas such as the difference between systematic and biblical theology, let alone why the Chalcedonian notion of the hypostatic union might be important, or what phrases like “the noetic effects of the Fall” actually mean. This calls for patient instruction of scientists by theologians, especially as to why a bit of theology can help scientists be better stewards of the calling to which they have been called as God’s vice-regents in exploring the dazzling complexity of His creation. This is even more important in a culture in which doing theology is increasingly undervalued. Here Henry is prescient, writing thirty years ago:

Yet how sad it is that in a single generation experiential and existential concerns have come so largely to overshadow interest in theology that the great doctrines of the faith survive only like a few shredded nuts loosely scattered over ice cream.77

I can only imagine how Henry would view today’s even more “sparsely sprinkled” sundae! Given the current culture of theological impoverishment within Evangelicalism, scientists often lack the theological sophistication to recognize problems posed by certain facile interpretations of modern science. In particular, scientists may often fall prey to the “law of unintended consequences”: they may believe that conclusions from science should force overturning of key doctrines held throughout much of the history of the church, yet they may not appreciate the interconnectedness of doctrine. It is precisely here that Carl Henry’s voice of caution may prove useful. Henry was loath to jettison key Christian doctrines due to what he viewed as the changeable fashions of current science. I think his impulse was a noble one. The received wisdom of the ecumenical councils and church history was arrived at over centuries of theological inspiration and perspiration. James K.A. Smith has argued that we are in a moment in which “inspired sweat” may be needed to synthesize the data from biology regarding evolution and the theological doctrines surrounding the origins of human sinfulness. He suggests that effort similar to that which yielded the Chaldedonian formulation of the two natures of Christ may be needed.78 While not all may agree with Smith’s particular conclusions, it seems hard to argue that careful thought and deliberative thinking should be the order of the day. I am encouraged that scholars are finding at least some space to think out loud about these issues79. What will most

77 Henry, “Trumpeting”, op cit, p. 24.78 Smith, J.K.A. (2012). “What Galileo’s Telescope Can’t See” Christianity Today Sept. 28, 2012. Online at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/september/what-galileos-telescope-cant-see.html. 79 One issue of course is the hotly contested issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve. Among several recent books dealing with this subject are Caneday, A.B . and Barrett, M, eds (2013). Four Views on the Historical Adam. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan and H. Madueme and M. Reeves, eds (2014). Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin. Grand

17

17


certainly be true is that theologians and scientists must work together if this sort of ambitious project is to succeed.

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. For a point/counterpoint on the issue of original sin hosted on the BioLogos web site, see Haarsma, L. (2013). “Why the Church Needs Multiple Theories of Original Sin”: http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/why-the-church-needs-multiple-theories-of-original-sin and Smith, J.K.A. (2015), “Is the Fall Like the Atonement?”: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/is-the-fall-like-the-atonement-is-there-room-for-multiple-theories-about-the-origin-of-sin. For a recent work by a thoughtful Evangelical scholar from continental Europe that has the courage to fail to come to hasty conclusions, see Blocher, H. (1997). Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

18

18


Theologians have wider perspectives scientists needSystematic theology of the sort pursued by Henry (although he actually omits large swaths of territory usually considered systematic theology!) is a bit of an endangered species today. Its scarcity is perhaps due to current fashion, or to the sense that it requires being expert in too many fields, or perhaps because tenure and promotion committees have insufficient patience to wait for a magnum opus to be completed. I want to argue that that the sort of theology Henry is attempting in GRA is valuable today, and that scientists need it. Systematicians try to do what the name of the subdiscipline suggests –systematize – by melding philosophy, theology, biblical studies, and “secular” knowledge. The best systematic theology seeks to take the most incisive work each of these disciplines has to offer and make sense of it as an integrated whole, and resists “cherry picking” information for the purpose of argumentation. This is difficult work, and certainly not for the faint of heart. Experts in philosophy, psychology, Hebrew or Greek syntax, Intertestamental Studies, biology, or anything else, can usually tell when a systematic theologian is out of his or her depth. I am clearly in similar territory in this paper! Yet the courage to synthesize God-given knowledge to make the most sense out of revelation wherever it may be found remains the systematic theologian’s task. Rather than walk away exasperated, biologists will be enriched when their work is taken seriously and they are invited to move towards theologians doing this difficult work.

One area in which theologians are crucial is in a synthetic articulation of human uniqueness. That humans are unique is undeniable. G.K. Chesterton’s quip, “Man is not merely an evolution but a revolution” 80 remains true! It is certainly the case that there are biological dimensions to human uniqueness. 81 However, decades ago Carl Henry recognized that a purely scientific definition of humanity as image-bearers would be inadequate:

The evolutionary effort to comprehend man’s uniqueness simply in biological terms focuses only on physical components and in so doing, strips the term uniqueness of rational, moral and spiritual categories.82

Theologians will be crucial to the project of defining human uniqueness for a new generation of Bible-believing scholars and lay people in such a way that both the integrity of the Scriptures and the integrity of insights gleaned from biology are synthesized.

Supplementing Dr. Henry: A More Hopeful ApproachIt may seem a bit presumptuous for a scientist to recommend a few remodeling projects for the edifice that is Carl F.H. Henry’s theological corpus, but in this last section that is what I propose to do. First, it is worth pointing out that the great creedal statements that all orthodox Christians affirm say nothing about the “muddy middle layer of mechanism” that absorbs much of our attention today. Both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds simply make the naked theological statement that God created, but nothing about detailed mechanism, nor about the age of the earth,

80 Chesterton, G.K. (1925). The Everlasting Man, 1955 reprint edition. New York: Image Books, p. 27.81 For a recent brief listing, see the blog by Joshua Swamidass: http://swami.wustl.edu/more-than-apes82 GRA Volume VI Ch. 9 (Kindle Locations 73332-73334).

19

19


or other related issues. 83 Henry seems to want to avoid elevating such concerns to creedal status himself:

It would be a strategic and theological blunder of the first magnitude were evangelicals to elevate the current dispute over dating to creedal status, or to consider one or another of the scientific options a test of theological fidelity. Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on a commitment to the recency or antiquity of the earth… the Genesis account does not fix the precise antiquity of either the earth or of man.84

Despite his clear preferences in GRA, Henry’s caution suggests that we would also do well to remember that these creedal statements have served us well for more than 1500 years as a source of unity.

Second, I want to reflect on a strand of theology that Henry would certainly affirm as valuable that stretches back to John Calvin. For Calvin “[t]he whole world is a theater for the display of the divine goodness, wisdom, justice, and power”.85 Divine sparks are everywhere:

wherever you turn your eyes, there is no portion of the world, however minute, that does not exhibit at least some sparks of beauty; while it is impossible to contemplate the vast and beautiful fabric as it extends around, without being overwhelmed by the immense weight of glory.86 As soon as we acknowledge God to be the supreme Architect, who has erected the beauteous fabric of the universe, our minds must necessarily be ravished with wonder at his infinite goodness, wisdom, and power.87

In his Commentary on Genesis, Calvin famously sees value in astronomy.88 He displays a constructive engagement that I wish were more prevalent in Dr. Henry’s writing.

Calvin’s successor, the 19th century Dutch Calvinist and public theologian par excellence, Abraham Kuyper, has inspired many Christian scholars – including myself – working in “secular” fields with his famous dictum that “not one square inch” of the world exists about which Jesus Christ does not say “Mine!”89. Kuyper views science and theology as working seamlessly together:

83 Nicene Creed. The Father, Son, and Spirit are all involved in creation and lifegiving: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, … by whom all things were made… And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life...”. See https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html84 GRA Vol. VI Ch. 9 (Kindle Locations 73939-73947).85 Calvin, Commentaries, Psalm 135:10 (trans. John King). Available online at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom12.html86 Calvin, Institutes I.5.1 (trans Henry Beveridge, 1845). Available online at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes87 Calvin, Commentaries, Psalm 19:1 (trans. John King). Online at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.html88 “For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise.” Calvin, Commentaries, Gen. 1:16 (trans. John King). Online at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.html89 Abraham Kuyper (1880). “Souvereiniteit in Eigen Kring.” Translated as “Sphere Sovereignty” in Bratt, J.D. (1998). Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 488.

20

20


If, therefore, God’s thinking is primary, and if all of creation is to be understood simply as the outflow but thinking of God, such that all things will come into existence and continue to exist through the Logos, that is, through divine reason, or more particularly, through the Word, and it must be the case that the divine thinking must be embedded in all created things. Thus there can be nothing in the universe that fails to express, to incarnate, the revelation of the thought of God. The whole creation is nothing but the visible curtain behind which radiates the exalted working of this divine thinking.90

Rather than an epistemic hierarchy, Kuyper sees consilience among complementary spheres of knowledge, each with its distinctive subjects and methods, yet ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the God of the universe than either could achieve separately. For Kuyper, this meant he was open to evolution as part of this “exalted working”:

…the question whether religion, as such, permits a spontaneous unfolding of the species in organic life…must be answered affirmatively, without reservation. We will not force our style upon the Chief Architect of the universe. If He is to be the Architect, not in name only but in reality, He will also be supreme in the choice of style.91

This means that he can receive all studies of the creation as valuable:Must we therefore write off the studies of the Darwinistic school, most broadly conceived, from the balance sheet of our scientific gains? Let me reply by asking whether well-established facts can ever be amortized. Nay, rather, all who love the light exult in the wealth of facts revealed by these studies and in the impetus to even deeper, more methodical research that they produced. Who of us still capable of enthusiasm would conceal the ecstasy that often moved him by the much deeper insight these studies gave into the essential structure of the world?92

Kuyper nevertheless sees the crucial integrative function of theology:Sin’s darkening lies in this, that we lost the gift of grasping the true context, the proper coherence, the systematic integration of all things… just like a dog or a bird sees a palace with stones and wood and mortar, and perhaps color, but neither comprehends nor understands anything of the building’s architecture or style…so we stand with darkened understanding before the temple of creation. We see the parts, pieces, and elements, but we no longer have an eye for the style of this temple. We can no longer guess its architect, and so we can no longer understand this temple of creation in its unity, origin, and destiny.93

Science is successful in the details (the “wood and mortar, perhaps color”), but lacks the complete picture that theology makes possible.

Instead of seeking a winner among “competitive ultimates”, this way of thinking provides a way forward for celebrating science but also contextualizing it in a profoundly Christian way. What strikes me about these examples is their lack of territoriality. Calvin and Kuyper certainly champion the crucial, authoritative special revelation of God in the Scriptures and the incarnate 90 Ibid, p. 39.91 Kuyper, A. (1899). “Evolutie.” Online at www.neocalvinisme.nl/ak/broch/akevol.html. Translated as “Evolution” in Bratt, J.D. (1998). Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 405-440. English also available online here: www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Kuyper.html. It is worth noting that Kuyper and his successor (Bavinck) had many concerns similar the Henry at a metaphysical level regarding “mechanism”:, by which they meant metaphysical naturalism. Here Kuyper is talking about observations of nature by scientists as opposed to their interpretation.92 Ibid, p. 416.93 Abraham Kuyper, De gemeene gratie, op cit., p. 55.

21

21


Word. But they also display a remarkably nuanced flexibility and openness to the honest investigations of scientists as part of general revelation.94 There are theologians today who are trying to hold both the results of modern science and the historical affirmations of the Church and the Scriptures together in similar ways. It is my prayer that the participants of the Creation Project will make important contributions to this effort.Conclusion: Listening to Dr. HenryAt the conclusion of this essay, it is fitting to let Carl Henry remind us of a final issue:

In honoring God as the source of all truth and wisdom the Christian affirms the limited understanding and wisdom of humanity. Man is to walk humbly amid God's creation, recognizing that he can speak with finality only where God has spoken in His Word. Even man's inferences from Scripture are not beyond the possibility of error. Such admission in no way relativizes the Bible, but points up man's creatureliness and fallibility. It is better even for theologians to admit mistakes than to hide them for others to uncover and then perhaps to attribute their misconceptions to Scripture rather than to themselves….

Confident that we can do nothing against the truth, Christians have every reason to welcome, rather than to oppose, scientific inquiry and research. 95

Henry’s point about the need for humility among scientists is spot on. This is especially true in an era in which science has acquired a veneer of omnicompetence.96 Henry’s call to theologians suggest that science and theology share the need for humility.

Scientists have much to learn from theologians, and I hope I have convinced you that theologians can also learn a bit from scientists. Both are engaged in a common mission of exploring the wonders of a multi-volume work by a single author who has expressed Himself in both world and Word. For that common mission to succeed, they will need humility. Peter Kreeft, in his guide to Pascal’s Pensées, makes a remark that both scientists and theologians should continually bear in mind:

St. Bernard, asked to name the four cardinal virtues, replied: “humility, humility, humility and humility.” Humility is not dishonest, cowardly, wormy smarmy; humility is the open and clear light of day. Humility is realism.97

May we all, in our study of God’s reality, engage in this kind of realism.

94 Kuyper’s successor as chair of theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, Herman Bavinck, says this:The world, too, is a book whose pages have been inscribed by God’s almighty hand. Conflict arises only because the text of the book of Scripture and the text of the book of nature are often so badly read and poorly understood. In this connection the theologians are not without blame since they have frequently condemned science, not in the name of Scripture, but of their own incorrect views. Natural scientists have repeatedly interpreted the facts and phenomena they discovered in a manner and in support of a worldview, that was justified neither by Scripture nor by science. Bavinck finds enough blame to go around! See See Bavinck, H. (1928). Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. In English as Bavinck, H. (2004). Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: God and Creation (J. Vriend; trans.; J. Bolt, ed), p. 518.

95 Henry, “The Ambiguities of Scientific Breakthrough” p. 103.96 Cf. Henry: “Scientific ingenuity and technological genius have added novel and overwhelming dimensions to our spiritually imperiled life. By their worldwide coverage of breakthrough events, the mass media lend to the scientist a cloak of omnicompetence and latent omniscience. GRA Vol. I Ch. 9 (Kindle Locations 373-376).97 Kreeft, Peter. Christianity for Modern Pagans.: Pascal’s Pensées. New York: Ignatius, p. 158.

22

22

Documents

henrycenter.tiu.edu€¦ · Web viewAs a public theologian, Carl F. H. Henry sought to bring Evangelical conviction to bear on a full range of human endeavor. His writings are a paradigm