Pannenberg's Indirect Contributions

Toward a Theology of Nature is a compilation of essays by Wolfhart Pannenberg that address the relationship between science and theology in hopes of establishing an appropriate theology of nature. The reason why this book was selected among the other four was because of the monumental impact Pannenberg has had on the science and theology discussion and the importance this discussion has for the revitalization of an evangelical natural theology. The overall thesis of the book is that the conflict between science and theology is inappropriate and needs to be done away with so that both fields of study will be able to obtain their full potential. Due to the complexity and nature of this book I will not be able to provide an exhaustive analysis of all the essays however, I will be highlighting the key areas that impact natural theology and providing my own analysis as to how natural theology can benefit from Pannenberg’s theology.
The relationship between science and theology was once a healthy and fruitful one. Theology was the driving force behind the advancement of science and spurred scientific thought by the questions it was raising. “There is a widespread awareness that science alone cannot cope with the consequences and side effects of scientific discoveries, especially in their technological application” (pg. 15). The concepts of inertia, contingency, and irreversibility all must be dealt with scientifically in order for theology to address larger categories, such as the creative work of God. Pannenberg rightly rejects the view that the Bible provides sound scientific principles and argues for theologians to not “invent a different form of science for its own use” (pg. 33). Rather than inventing science that seems to fit into a wooden biblical understanding of the creation and operation of the world, he contends that theologians should be actively engaged in current scientific research with their theological frameworks to help understand how God’s creation works. He is not arguing for or against creation, it is not even a question to be considered from his point of view because evolution is the scientific norm.
Although Pannenberg is a proponent of evolution he does not diminish the role of God in creation. “One cannot think seriously of God—in any case, in the singular—without thinking of God as the origin of all that is and also of the origin of the world” (pg. 51). The third article of the book focuses on the history of science and theology and provides a great understanding of God’s relationship to nature through the eyes of science and theology. One of the most significant scientific blunders in the life of the church, the Copernican Revolution, is given significant discussion by Pannenberg in this section. He goes on to discuss other key thinkers like Spinoza and Descartes in order to validate the role theology has played in science. The problem that arose within theology and science was that God’s relationship to the world became more and more distant because of the science that was developed. The determinism of Descartes gave way to the flexibility of evolution. “So Aubrey Moore wrote of Darwinism that in the disguise of an enemy it had shown itself actually as a friend of faith. It is only important to find God himself at work in the process of evolution” (pg. 57).
The final article that I would like to comment on is entitled, “The Doctrine of the Spirit and Task of a Theology of Nature.” The Spirit, for Pannenberg is an essential part of understanding nature and the work of God. He points to Irenaeus, Luther, and Calvin to illustrate the historicity of the concept that the Spirit’s was at work in creation. The trap that must be avoided when working with the Spirit in creation is Cartesian dualism. The way in which Pannenberg over comes this is be revising Teilhard’s conception of the Spirit so that one can explain how energy is not only contained within bodies but also transcends bodies (pg. 132). He concludes this section by explaining the reality of human transcendence through the mind. “The human mind is no longer itself the unity of experience, but is looking for something beyond itself that gives unity to experiences” (pg. 136).
This collection of Pannenberg’s works is not for the faint of heart. He intersperses extremely technical scientific language with complex theological complex that could leave one’s head spinning, but the information that can be gleaned from this book are significant for a new natural theology. If one is going to understand how God is communicating to his people through nature, one must have some understanding of nature. The best way for an individual to understand nature is through the work of natural scientists. There are copious amounts of facts that science can provide in an explanation of the human body and theologians need to know at least some of it to better understand God.
Some would argue that evolution diminishes the value of natural theology and removes God from his position of supreme authority. I have to agree with Pannenberg and say that it does necessarily follow that if evolution is true, then God is less of a God. I am not, at this time arguing in favor of either side; that is not the focus of this project or this article. Pannenberg’s affirmation of God’s creative work through evolution does not extinguish the revelatory value of evolution. I think that Iraneaus, in his emphasis on the work of the Spirit, provides significant support for a Christian natural theology. “Thus the spirit, according to Iraneaus, was the first to reveal God to humanity” (pg. 126). I have to wonder if our pneumatology is not what has been hindering most evangelicals from understanding, and accepting natural theology as a valid form of revelation?
Pannenberg does not deal directly with the topic of natural theology in this particular work, but this does not mean that the application of this work is any less influential for a post Barthian natural theology. Natural theology, and all of theology for that matter, needs to be informed by the work of science. The more science is able to tell us about nature the better understanding we will have about what God is doing in and through nature. It is true that creation has been affected by sin, but this does not mean that all of science is corrupt or that the empirical data that is gained through scientific research has less value for our lives. Again I resonate with Panneberg when he said, “Our task as theologians is to relate to the natural sciences as they actually exist…Yet we must go beyond what sciences provide and include our understanding of God if we are properly to understand nature” (pg. 48).

The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology.

Alister E. McGrath set out to reestablish the validity and value of natural theology by introducing a new Christian natural theology. In order for natural theology to be authoritative it must first start from a Christian perspective, according to McGrath. The intent of The Open Secret is not to provide a comprehensive understanding on McGrath’s new natural theology, but it is to open dialogue about how a new natural theology can and should be developed. In my brief review of this work I will provide an overview of the three parts of the book, followed by a brief analysis of the book and role of this book in future natural theology dialogues.
In part one of The Open Secret, McGrath seeks to explain why natural theology has developed and the overall context in which natural theology exists. The reality of a transcendent God is the first component he seeks to explain and establish as a foundation for the need for natural theology and the content of that theology. If God is not transcendent, then knowing about him through the created order is not possible. He spends the majority of the first section unpacking what it means to say that God is transcendent for not only Christianity, but also science and all of life.
The second section of the book is concerned with cleaning out the rubbish of previous natural theologies and purposing a new view of natural theology that is in line with an orthodox Christian worldview that deal appropriately with the doctrine of creation and the kingdom of God. “The natural world, seen in a particular way, is presented as evidence for the character of the kingdom of God, or the attributes of the divine” (pg. 123). The problem that McGrath points to in our “seeing” creation in an appropriate way is the depravity of humanity. He acknowledges that humanity is unable to have a full understanding of God through a natural theology that operates strictly on general revelation. The natural theology that Barth condemned is also condemned by McGrath. Our hindered vision is illustrated another way, “To use an image due to Michael Polanyi, we could say that the natural order, when viewed through the prism of the Christian tradition, ceases to be a noise and becomes a tune” (pg 184).
The rediscovery McGrath is arguing for in the second portion of this book is one that requires a faith in Christ in order to have a better understanding of what God is doing through the natural order. In addition, one’s faith in Christ does not grant them infallible access to understanding nature because, “nature is thus to be seen as a continual reminder and symbol of a renewed creation, a world which we do not yet know but believe to lie over the horizons of our human existence” (pg. 208). Nature can only allow an unbeliever to have a distorted understanding of God because of humanities vision problem. The Christocentric focus in the realm of natural theology is not only new and revolutionary, but essential for an evangelical natural theology that is able to withstand evangelical criticism.
The third section of the book focuses on the categories of “truth, beauty, and goodness.” McGrath illustrates that all of humanity is concerned with and drawn towards truth, beauty, and goodness. His heart is captured in the following statement, “We must aim to convey or bring about “an apprehension of the spiritual beauty and glory of divine things” (pg 285). This new vision of natural theology moves beyond the apologetical realm of proving the existence of God and becomes applicable for not only those seeking God, but all the more for those who are followers of Christ. One’s worship is not complete without an appropriate natural theology. McGrath captures this fact by quoting the great Jon Edwards, “When we are delighted with flowery meadows and gentle breezes of wind, we may consider that we only see the emanations of the sweet benevolence of Jesus Christ” (pg 284). The broadening of one’s perspective of God’s intention for creation opens one up to a richer worship that is stunted without Edward’s worldview.
The Open Secret is a revolutionary book that left me wanting more, and anticipating the next publication from McGrath that will follow this work. McGrath is infamous for publishing a book that will serve as a springboard to a more in depth analysis of a topic, or a multivolume collection. He provides not only an evangelical opinion, but a highly scientific approach to a complex topic that could result in the furthering of the crucial dialogue between science and theology. This work will serve as a shot in the arm to a Christian approach to natural theology. The crucial component that I found in this book was the “ground-clearing” that must take place in order for a sound and solid natural theology to be constructed.
Since natural theology has been stigmatized by the Enlightenment and theologians like Karl Barth, those who wish to develop an Evangelical natural theology are going to be leaning on the work of McGrath for years to come. The value of McGrath’s purposely is not only because it is scientifically faithful but because it is also overwhelmingly Evangelical. I believe that the final section of the book provides a contemporary application of McGrath’s theology that will result in the expansion of Christian’s worship of the almighty God. The practical application of this new natural theology is a component that cannot be denied by would be naysayers. I see the practicality that permeates McGrath’s natural theology as paramount to its application and future impact on the ongoing science and theology conversation. As we continue to see the increase of relativism and the epistemological breakdown that has resulted from the postmodern condition, we need to reevaluate crucial theological categories like natural theology. Pre-Enlightenment natural theology is dead and of no value for us today. The new natural theology is seen through the eyes of Christ and can be summarized by saying, “Natural theology is the approach to nature that arises from the inhibition of the Christian faith, leading to nature being “seen” in a certain way” (pg. 233). McGrath has answered the bell that resulted from the death of this natural theology and not only answered it, but shattered the bell through The Open Secret.

A Christian Natural Theology?

A Christian Natural Theology is an inappropriate and deceptive title for John B. Cobb Jr.'s on the applicability of Whiteheadean philosophy and natural theology. Natural theology is a portion of this particular book and becomes the emphasis in the final twenty pages. However, he spends the lion's share of this book describing Whitehead's philosophy and his own process worldview. In this post I will provide a brief overview of Cobb's book, including detailed description of a few of his arguments, followed by my own critique of this particular work.

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the book is Cobb's presentation of Whitehead's thought. The first piece of Whiteheadian philosophy that is essential to the book is his understanding of time and reality (actual occasions).  For Whitehead, reality is not comprised of individual events that are able to be dissected and analyzed, but is a continual flow of undefinable occasions.  "The sense of there being a reality other than our experience given to us in the experience is absolutely primitive" (Cobb Jr. pg. 6).  Once Cobb has explained Whitehead's conception of reality, he turns his focus to humanity.  The human soul is built on top of Whitehead's view of experience.  For Whithead, and Cobb, the soul is immaterial and thus immeasurable.  "It is nothing but the sequence of the experience that constitute it" (Cobb Jr. pg. 19)  From this, Whitehead coined the phrase, "living person," which is a soul.  Since humans are "living persons" there is not life after death for Whitehead, but Cobb does not believe that natural theology needs to be concerned about such issues.

Whitehead's doctrine of God is as equally as complex as his anthropology and complicates the relationship between humanity and nature even further.  Science is one of the main areas of Whitehead's experience, therefore, his doctrine of God is highly influenced by science and at times stereotypes orthodox Christianity as only believing in a "God of the gaps" approach to science.  Whitehead is against a personal conception of God and, "He even denies that religious experience provides adequate warrant for affirming the actuality of God" (Cobb Jr. pg. 90).  He goes on to argue that humanity shares in God and God's desire is to see the increase of all creatures.

Cobb concludes this book with his definition of theology and how natural theology fits into the larger realm of theology and in the even larger system that is the cosmos.  He throws some bold accusations at conservative evangelicals definition of theology and in particular, biblical theology before transitioning into what is supposed to be the focus of the book.  Cobb seeks to provide a philosophically robust natural theology that is not dependent on a community of conviction or theological foundation.  Instead, his natural theology focuses on "the findings of science, or the widespread experience of humankind" (Cobb Jr. pg. 176).  Since he knows that many of his critics will try to label his natural theology as relativistic, Cobb attempts to rebut them in the final pages of the book rather than through further publications.  However, he seems to do the exact opposite of what he is trying to do by making statements like the following, "There is no human value that is eternally sanctioned for all times and places" (Cobb Jr. pg 181).  The book ends with Cobb's final argument for why Whitehead's philosophy is the best option for a Christian natural theology, and is anything but inadequate or heretical. 

Although many orthodox Christian theologians have a great disdain for Cobb and his work, I think that his perspective can be a rejuvenating breath of fresh air for our understanding of natural theology. Cobb is not afraid to take on the monumental challenges that rationalism and the Enlightenment have created for theology and Christianity and I am grateful for that. Also, I agree with Cobb when he says, "the partly legitimate rejection of natural theology has led much of Protestant theology to fail to come effectively to grips with this kind of responsible thinking" (Cobb Jr. pg. 173). The scientific revolution has forced Christian theology and doctrine to adapt long held beliefs because they have been proven to be suspect at best and false at worst. Since Cobb has a high view of science and the empirical verification that science operates on to confirm the veracity of claims, we must be open to the advice that he contributes to the conversation. 

The first problem that must be addressed in Cobb’s presentation is that of relativism. He attempts to counter this claim in the final chapter of the book by claiming to not be relativistic; however, he contradicts his claim by arguing for a confessional form of theology that transforms truth claims into plastic assertions that are only valid within particular groups and contexts. In addition, he contends that we must be open to the truth claims of all faiths, and not be exclusivistic in our understanding of truth. This is yet another example of the need to accept Cobb’s worldview in order to by into his thinking. As a radical pluralist, Cobb will not allow for Christianity, or any religion for that matter, to claim to have ultimate absolute truth that trumps competing truth claims.  Furthermore, he exhorts Christians to "set aside all their particular belief about Jesus Christ, God, miracles, salvation, and eternal life that they recognize as peculiar to that tradition" (Cobb Jr. pg. 176).  This idea is preposterous.  How can he argue in the first portion of the book that humans are so tightly bound that we are unable to separate key events in our lives and then urge people to bifurcate their core theology from the rest of their thinking?  Theology is a tight web that is affected by all other components of the web.  One cannot simply section off portions of their theology for modification and believe that the rest of their theology will not be affected.

The second problem I have with Cobb’s thought is his description of theology. “One’s work is theology even if one ignores all earlier statements and begins only with the way things appear to one from that perspective which one acknowledges as given to one in some community of shared life conviction” (Cobb Jr. pg. 166).  How is one able to do theology from the present without any understanding of the past?  Again, if reality is comprised of linked events that build on one another, how is one able to secure a vacuum like setting to construct a theology devoid of past influence?  I find Cobb's description of theology to be unacceptable, therefore, Cobb's natural theology is inchoate.  

As you can see from my brief analysis of Cobb's, A Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead, the book does not fulfill its purposed aim in the title, nor does it provide a robust natural theology that is able to function in any realm, let alone an orthodox Christian one.  I do find some value in Cobb's work for those both inside and outside the theology of the church.  Science is a key component of our world, and needs to be taken seriously.  Christians can no longer act like ostriches and bury their heads in the sand in hopes that science will go away.  On the same token, Christian theology, if it is to affect the masses must not cloister itself from the secular world and must engage with folks like Cobb and Whitehead so that we are able to articulate our findings not only to those operating with a similar worldview, but with those who disagree with us. 

Analysis of "Natural Theology" by Emil Brunner

A Monumental Conflict Between Friends

The question that is at the forefront of Natural Theology is, "Do humans have the capacity or ability to receive revelation from God, through nature, apart from Christ and/or the biblical text?" Emil Brunner and Karl Barth were not only contemporaries, but friends, that is, until Brunner’s pamphlet on natural theology hit the press and openly attacked the stance of his friend Barth. In this post I will provide an overview of both Brunner and Barth’s positions on the topic of natural theology followed by a critique of their arguments. The aim of this essay is to provide the reader with a concise understanding of Natural Theology and encourage personal reflection on the topic of natural theology both inside and outside of the Church.

Brunner’s main focus in his pamphlet is on the imago Dei and the capacity to which humans still posses that image of God after the fall and corruption as a result of the fall. He contends that humanity has not lost the “function or calling”[1] as image bearers, but it has been tainted by sin and continues to exist within the sinful human being. The relationship of God and man is the key component of his thesis. Brunner goes on to argue that Scripture itself “upbraids man for not acknowledging”[2] the revelation that is seen through the creation. The capacity of humans to be addressed, to know, and to have responsibility are three essential characteristics of a human being that must be present by definition and in that as image bearers. In addition, the effects of the fall are not just felt within humanity, but nature as a whole has been affected both objectively and subjectively. “But it is not affected so much as to render the will of God, the “rule” of nature invisible.”[3]

Since God has given us two forms of revelation, natural revelation and the revelation in Christ, according to Brunner, the focus must shift away from whether or not natural theology (revelation) is possible and towards the relationship between the revelation in Christ and that in nature. For Brunner, Christ is the only avenue through which one is able to access the true “theologia naturalis.” The objective natural knowledge of God that can be obtained through nature is capable of leading one to Christ and providing further understanding of who God is once abiding in the grace of Christ. He points to the Reformers, in contrast to Roman Catholic doctrine, to lean on their belief that “no statement concerning nature can be quite correct unless Christ be taken into account.” [4] Christ is always the culmination of natural revelation and the giver of divine revelation, but Brunner does not seek to extinguish any value of natural theology in the lives of humans and the life of the Church.

In addition, he seeks to make it clear there has been significant damage done by misguided natural theology; however he believed that the distortion and corruption of natural theology should not cause the Church to all together abolish it. He in fact applauds Barth for his vehement defense of the faith from perversions that have arisen out of natural theology. When speaking on the misguided natural theologies of the past and present he said, “The fact that there is a false apologetic way of making contact does not mean that there is not a right way.”[5] The overall belief of Brunner is that God does reveal himself through nature, but one is not able to attain a salvific knowledge of God outside of Christ and nature will never be able to provide humanity with a “true” knowledge of God.

The area of natural theology was dramatically changed when Karl Barth entered the discussion. Barth had a particular disdain for natural theology and the title of his response to Brunner was simply, NO! He believed that natural theology risked the “ultimate truth” of the Church and must be stood against on all sides. “Every attempt to assert a general revelation has to be rejected.”[6] For Barth, all of theology centered on Christ and the cross, and to seek to understand anything apart from Christ was futile and heretical.

The main argument of Barth against Brunner is that of the ability of corrupt humanity. He takes particular contention with Brunner’s idea of “preserving grace.” Barth sees “preserving grace” in direct contradiction with the Reformers concept of sola gratia. The reason why he has such a difficult time with a preserving grace is because of the value it gives to the “natural ordinances,” as defined by Brunner, and their necessary role in God’s overall plan for humanity and creation. He goes on to argue that Brunner contradicts himself when speaking of the capacity of humans to do good being lost, yet the capacity for revelation remaining. The illustration that he uses is of a person drowning and in need of a lifeguard to save them from death. If the drowning victim is able to provide any assistance for the lifeguard, then the saving act by the lifeguard is diminished. In the same way, if humans are capable of assisting in their own salvation even by “making a few good strokes” the magnitude of God’s saving act is decreased and sola gratia is no longer true. Again, Barth balks at any possibility of humanity to know God and his desires for us apart from divine revelation; then we should have been able to save ourselves, like the drowning swimmer.

In an attempt to strengthen his argument, Barth appeals to some key Pauline scriptures about his life in Christ and his life in the flesh. He contends that Paul’s description in I Corinthians 2 and Galatians 2 speaks of a transformation that only comes through a faith in Christ, and not from any worldly or fleshly discernment. Paul’s flesh has been “crucified with Christ.” This means, for Barth, that there is nothing good that existed in his flesh prior to his faith in Christ. Brunner has missed the mark in exegeting Paul, according to Barth, and is in need of “an angel from heaven who would call to him through a silver trumpet of enormous dimensions.”[7]

I resonate with Brunner’s belief that, “The experiential = knowledge of God is not made superfluous by faith in the Word of God, but on the contrary remains an important complement of the knowledge of God derived from Scripture.”[8] I cannot agree with Brunner in his assertion that one is “in relation with the divine truth” when they are doing anything scientific or artistic. On the other hand, I do not agree with Barth in his outright rejection of natural theology and natural revelation. I think he is wrong when he says, “For ‘natural theology’ does not exist as an entity capable of becoming a separate subject within what I consider to be real theology – not even for the sake of being rejected.”[9] I do agree that the Church is at risk when they allow natural theology to move too far outside of the bounds of the revelation in Christ and Scripture. I think that Barth allowed his emotions to drive much of his argument and in the end affect the overall tone of hit essay.

My hope is that this brief synopsis of Natural Theology will either begin stirring or continue to stir your heart and mind about the significance and controversy that is undeniably a part of natural theology. This is by no means an exhaustive review of Brunner and Barth’s arguments; however it does highlight some of the key areas that separate the one time friends. The debate over natural theology rages on today and has been directly impacted by both these men, both positively and negatively. The impact of Karl Barth on natural theology is still being felt today and the dialogue surrounding the topic is far from over.

---

[1] Brunner, Emil Natural Theology pg. 23

[2] Brunner pg. 24

[3] Brunner pg. 37

[4] Brunner pg. 46

[5] Brunner pg. 58

[6] Brunner pg. 74

[7] Brunner pg. 93

[8] Brunner pg. 38

[9] Brunner pg. 75

Intro. to Our Dialogue on Natural Theology

Standing atop a 14,000 foot peak in the Rocky Mountains, one is overwhelmed with the enormity of our world. Diving among the coral reefs of the South Pacific, one is in awe of the intricacies of marine life. Gazing into a telescope on a clear night, one is shrunk by the vastness of our universe. All of these are feelings that people experience when they are "communing with nature." So what about God? Are all of these countless experiences proof for the existence of God? Did God design and create "nature" in such a way that we would have no excuse but to worship Him? The topic of natural theology is something that I have taken a particular interest in over the last nine years. In this next series of blog postings I will be inviting you into dialogue on this complex topic. I will be writing about books that I have read, conversations that I have been involved in, experiences that I have had, and research that I have done all focusing in on natural theology. What is the role of natural theology? How has it been addressed in the past? Is there a value outside of apologetics for natural theology? Is natural theology a form of worship? What are we worshiping when we do natural theology?

For centuries, natural theology has been defined as a philosophical pursuit to prove the existence of God through the rational examination of nature. It has been seen as a primarily apogetical discipline that focuses on the revelation that can or cannot be obtained through nature. The term "nature" is being used for more than just plants, trees, and even the Earth. The universe, the human body, animals, plants, the processes of the "natural" world, and much more are under examination within the parameters of natural theology. What can we know about God through nature, whether it be through study or simple experience? This is the ultimate question that drives natural theology.

As I embark/continue on this journey I am personally inviting you to join me. The mystery of the blog, to me, is whether or not people are actually reading what I am writing. If a blog is posted on the Internet, but is never read, does it really matter that it was posted? I cherish your thoughts, questions, challenges, and involvement of any kind. I will be posting a minimum of five essays about particular books that I will read, at least one post about a survey that I will be doing, and at least one post about the research paper that will be the culmination of this particular study. You will help guide some of the posts, depending on your interactions, so come on, lets enter into this dense forest that is natural theology, together.