Christology and Science

Pairing these modes of inquiry -- Christology and Science -- may seem odd to many readers, but I am increasingly convinced that one of the major challenges for Christian witness to Jesus Christ in postmodern culture will be articulating christological doctrine in dialogue with contemporary sciences such as biology, sociology and even physical cosmology.

The searches for the historical Jesus (at least the first two anyway) were in large part driven by Lessing's threatening ditch, and the drive for universality implicit in modern criticism and later positivism.  But these are not so threatening anymore, and so talking about the particularity of Jesus and the significance of fidelity to his way of life is not so alien in postmodern culture.

However, many of the WAYS in which we talk about this particularity and fidelity are problematic insofar as they presuppose ancient or early modern philosophical and scientific assumptions.  In my upcoming book on "Christology and Science" I attempt to spell out some reconstructive directions for the doctrines of the incarnation, the atonement and the parousia.

But for this blog, I would like to invite reflection on the way in which we -- as persons interested in a conversation between the church and postmodern culture -- respond to the challenges and opportunities implicit in such an endeavor.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Introduction, encouraging us to attend to the delightful terror of such an interdisciplinary engagement:

____________

"In every generation Christian theology is faced with the task of articulating the intuitions of the biblical tradition about the significance of Jesus Christ in a way that engages its own cultural context. This task feels especially daunting and dangerous in the context of interdisciplinary dialogue with contemporary sciences such as evolutionary biology, cultural anthropology and physical cosmology, which question the coherence and plausibility of many traditional Christological formulations. However, as we reflect on the philosophical shifts that have shaped the conceptual space of late modern discourse about human life in the cosmos we may find that these challenges also provide theology with new opportunities for explicating and clarifying the Christian experience and understanding of Jesus Christ.

This book is my attempt to show that engaging in this interdisciplinary endeavor is both possible and promising. The task of reforming Christology will indeed require the reconstruction of previous doctrinal formulations, as it has throughout church history. Many traditional depictions of the person, work and coming of Christ are shaped by assumptions about humanity and the world that no longer make sense in light of contemporary science. One way of responding to these challenges would be to try to insulate theology from science, defensively maintaining one’s favored ancient or early modern doctrinal formulation. Or one might try to insulate science from theology, defensively reducing the human longing for redemptive transformation to one’s favored disciplinary explanation. Extreme responses are often the easiest.

However, the more difficult reconstructive response, which attempts to maintain the integrity of theology while integrating relevant scientific and philosophical insights, will also be the more rewarding. As we will see in the following chapters, reconstructing Christology has always been an important part of the ongoing reformation of the Christian church. 

This brings us to a second sense in which this book aims at reforming Christology. The study of Jesus Christ ought to have a reformative effect on contemporary life. An articulation of Christian doctrine should not only help us make sense of our experience in the world; it should also facilitate the reformation of our ways of living in the world.

Many traditional formulations of Christology rely so heavily on ancient concepts of substance or medieval concepts of jurisprudence that they seem irrelevant to the concrete concerns that shape late modern culture. Yet, the human longing to understand and be understood, to love and be loved, to hold and be held onto in healthy relations with others is as strong as ever in contemporary life. One of the functions of Christological discourse is to illuminate the origin, condition and goal of these desires. Bringing Christology and science into explicit, concrete dialogue will have a disturbing effect on many of our comfortable assumptions about our life together, but this is an important part of any deeply transformative process.

It is important to face the fears that we bring to such an endeavor. Some theologians will be concerned that discussion of particular claims about Christ may offend the pluralist sensibilities of the interdisciplinary community, while others will be anxious that serious engagement with science will simply render implausible some cherished Christological formulations. Some scientists will worry that talking about Jesus in public will undermine their reputation among their colleagues, while others will suspect that religionists are encroaching on their territory. Some laypersons will fear that any change in inherited formulations brings the destruction of faith itself, while others will wonder whether maintaining the centrality of Christology is really worth the effort."

_________

I then try to enhance the desirability of engaging in the reconstructive task of interdisciplinary dialogue without obscuring the real terror that it brings.

But I would be curious to know how those who follow this particular blog conversation respond to the very idea of such a reconstructive engagement?

Comments

[daniel a. siedell]

leron, i think such a reconstructive engagement is indeed necessary, especially if we view the history of the church as having to engage creatively, and even, at times, radically, with contemporary thought. and i certainly believe that the alternatives (sealing 'theology' and 'science' off from one another) are not sound, even if they might achieve some short term success.

however, i do have some potential concerns, derived only from what i know about your project from the few paragraphs of your introduction:

i would be concerned that such 'reconstruction' not give the lie too much with science--grant science too much authority in shaping theological thought; in other words, that iworry that theology's job or the role of the church is to play 'catch up' to contemporary thought in philosophy, science, or what have you--this is the story of post-enlightenment liberal protestant theology. so, how would this project differ from those?

it also seems to me that a significant amount of contemporary scientific thought should be run through the lens, not of contemporary christian thought, but through the fathers. i want to see the tension between 'ancient-future' remain palpable, not dissolved into a 'future' that is premised on some neo-darwinian theory of christianity's evolution.

i worry about the hubris of contemporary science in its enlightenment form and the subsequent problem of 'doing science' in its wake, was a way of 'adapting' to its truth. i am intrigued by the work of social epistemologist and science historian steve fuller, who is very much interested in the necessity of 'lost' or 'defeated' scientific knowledge being re-excavated in contemporary discourse. in fact, he's been publically supportive of intelligent design as an important part as an important participant in scientific discourse. his constructivist understanding of science seems to counter the hubris of science as the present-day answer to all our problems, including spiritual ones.

i would hope that such reconstruction can also offer a rigorous and apt criticism of contemporary thought, in whatever form that takes, even in science. i'd be concerned that a reconstructivist theology might place dogma 'up for grabs' in the face of scientific discoveries. and so i'd be interested in exploring what of dogma wouldn't be up for grabs and how those determinations would be made.

[LeRon]

Hi Daniel,

Yes, you've identified some very real and important concerns.

I agree that theology should not try to "catch up" with science, as you put it. In fact, I think it should in some cases actually be taking a lead in the discourse. One important way to do this is through engage in philosophical reflection on concepts like difference, temporality, etc.

I also agree that we should engage the fathers and the rest of the Christian tradition, but the WAY in which we do this, in my view, is not to repeat what they said, which was couched in the terminology of their own scientific and philosophical assumptions, but to do what they did: articulate the transforming experience of the biblical God in ways that show its illuminative power in our own cultural context(s).

This includes dealing with the issues you have raised, including philosophy of science and the question of criteria for theological formulations.

I've tried to do these and other things in the book.

For this post, I'm especially interested in encouraging us to think about the role of our own fear and desire, and how these affect the way we react to the possible dialogue between theology and science.

What do we fear most, and why?

What do we desire most, and why?

LeRon

[rodney neill]

Hello LeRon,

I suppose in Europe there is a deep seated skepticism about about the Christian message ( hangover from medaevil times, scientific nonsense, religion is an evil that has caused many wars etc.) I speak as ordinary rank and file Christian who finds it a real challenge to maintain confidence in the Christian message in the wake of such an onslaught. My fear in any such dialogue is that the non-negotiable essentials of the message are surrendered in the pursuit ot trying to make the message credible to modern ears. (I have seen this happen in the dialogue between Christianity and postmodern philosphy in for example the growing influence of 'religion without religion' theology of J Caputo on the emerging church.) If your project can deal with the tension of articulating the transforming experience of God in new ways yet remain rooted within the Christian tradition then it can make a much needed contribution to trying to wrestle with the problems of being a Christian in 21st century Europe.

all the best,

Rodney

[James K.A. Smith]

I can feel a book title coming on: "Who's Afraid of Quantum Mechanics? Taking Einstein to the Nicene Council" :-)

Thanks for pushing us on these matters, LeRon. I think you're absolutely right that part of our engagement with postmodern "culture" has to include an engagement with the dominant cultural power (and success) of the sciences. To date, I think most of the science/religion dialogue has been conducted with far too much deference to science as a kind of black box (how much is being crammed into the refrain "what science says..." or "science tell us that..."?).

I'm not sure that fear is any issue. But the question of desire is a good one: what are we after in such an engagement? Why do we think it's important? What do we expect to be the result? I think the question is whether this conversation has to be undertaken with a basically apologetic interest (which was clearly Bultmann's interest, for instance). I don't think so, and I think the apologetic bent [which I'm not attributing to you] actually skews the conversation and doesn't work with a level playing field: it's already let "science" set the rules of the game.

I want to engage in the conversation in order to not have my head stuck in the sand. This isn't a fear of being "irrelevant," but rather comes from a conviction that, despite their freighted, theory-laden nature, the sciences still do the work of getting us to bump up against "nature"--that is, the givenness of God's creation--in some serious sense. I don't want to proffer theological claims that go against the grain of God's own universe. So insofar as the sciences help to 'unveil' that--insofar as they are channel for "nature" to push back on our claims--then I think we need to listen. Insofar as science actually covers up nature, and fails to "disclose," I think we need to engage in critique.

I look forward to discussing these issues "live" at APU!

[Geoff Holsclaw]

LeRon, thank you for the stimulating post.
I echo the concerns and hopes mentioned above.

You say, "...one of the major challenges for Christian witness to Jesus Christ in postmodern culture will be articulating christological doctrine in dialogue with contemporary sciences such as biology, sociology and even physical cosmology."

This way of phrasing the challenge gets to the heart of the issue between theology and science, even faith and reason. On the one hand, at the most fundamental level our Christology is a claim for what it means to be truly human, truly a person. On the other hand, the disciplines you mentioned (biology, sociology, physical cosmology...and I would add cultural anthropology and psychology) also seem to make claims about what it means to be a human (or do they?).

So the fear I have is that one 'meaning' would overwhelm the other (leading Nestorian or Apollinarian heresies). But my hope is that each would mutually reinforce the other moving from the wonder of creation to the praise of the Creator.

[daniel a. siedell]

hi leron, thanks for your comments and pushing the 'fear' and 'desire' questions. although it might be too sharp a word to describe them, 'fear' personalizes the issue, which i think is very good. so, personally, my fear is this: i was reared as a very conservative evangelical (i hesitate to call it 'fundamentalist' because my father would have a heart attack), and have, for the last ten to fifteen years, plodded my way toward the ancient faith, and so as i embrace this ancient faith of the fathers, i was criticized by my fundamentalist friends as hiding from the contemporary world and taking refuge in 'superstition' and 'tradition,' embracing a faith that is all but irrelavent to modern (postmodern) experience.

so, i 'fear' that a certain kind of engagement with 'science' will yield the same response.

my 'desire' is that your study, and others like it, will open up the continued relevance of the ancient faith, and even though the greek fathers employed 'substance philosophy,' such employment doesn't render their contribution irrelavent to the contemporary experience.

thanks for pushing me, leron.

[LeRon Shults]

Hi Rodney,

I share your fears and desires, but I personally am less worried about (most forms) of deconstruction and more hopeful about the emerging church. The Christology book certainly aims to deal with the tensions you mention, so we'll see!

Hi Jamie,

Yes, I'm looking forward to some face to face conversations about... everything! Two days will not be enough time. ;)

Love the book title suggestion! Actually I do try to show the implications of Einstein's theories of relativity for the doctrine of the parousia.

Excellent point about the fact that science can both veil and unveil. This is one of the reasons that I focus on the philosophical categories used by both theology and science, and their shared existential concerns. I think philosophy can serve as one kind of mediating function in the dialogue, though it too can become obfuscatory rather than illuminative.

Hi Geoff,

Yes, I think that both Christology and the human sciences are both interested in what it means to be human, and these interpretations can be and often are in conflict, which is why theology and science so often appear to be (and often are) contradictory. I also agree that we should try to understand them as complementing each other, although that may require critical reconstruction of one or both disciplines.

Hi Daniel,

That is very strange to hear that your fundamentalist friends were upset by your embracing tradition! My guess is that they thought you were embracing the wrong part of the tradition. ;)

By the way, I completely agree that the Father's use of substance philosophy does not render them irrelevant. But I do think that we need to engage them critically, as they engaged each other critically, and remain open, as they were (hence, e.g., the changes and clarifications from creed to creed), to new formulations that more clearly articulate the Gospel in context.

LeRon

[Jason Hesiak]

Uummm...I hate to ask dumb questions...but why would the ancient concept of substance be irrelevant to us today? LeRon seemed to simply state that it is. Then Dan seemed to state that its not. I've always thought that modern scientists sort of did the combo of not caring about substance and assuming that only empirically observable things have substance. To me this doesn't render what is not observable or what has not been observed as without substance; and it certainly doesn't seem to render the anceint concept of substance irrelevant to us today.

[OK so as I was writing, that LeRon posted again on substance, so...now I am just wondering...what are the ways that ancient notions of substance need to be reformulated? And would it mean the unsubstantiation of what is not observable? Would it mean the unsubstantiation of the SELF? ;) ]

And Dan - I resonated with your comment a lot...until you said: his constructivist understanding of science seems to counter the hubris of science as the present-day answer to all our problems, including spiritual ones. I'm not sure: A) how constructivism does that, and B) why this comment in support of constructivism would follow after your criticisms of enlightenment thought. Constructivism does seem more "open" and "experiential"...but in the end it seems to me that it is essentially modern (e.g. - "schema"). I'm assuming you have lots of thoughts on that, and I would love a little further prodding :)

Jason :)

[Jason Hesiak]

To be more clear, maybe I should change "observable" to "testable" in my last comment: "would it mean the unsubstantiation of what is not testable (through empirical observation, I suppose :)?"

[Jason Hesiak]

I do try to show the implications of Einstein's theories of relativity for the doctrine of the parousia.

That's really interesting. Too many possibilities for how you might sort through all that go through my head for me to be able to ask a coherent question about it. But I hope to get to hear more about it :)

Jason

[daniel a. siedell]

hi leron, well, my fundamentalist friends don't believe anything good comes from 'tradition,' in other words, what some dead guys in the fourth century have to say to the 'modern' world. this is why my fundamentalist friends like 'science,' it's relevant and authoritative, hence their desire to 'prove' young earth creationism and defeat evolution on normative scientific grounds. nothing is more unscientific, to them, than holy tradition.

i agree that the spirit of the fathers of critical engagement, of pushing truth to transcend accepted patterns of thought. this is especially true of the greek fathers, who, in adopted the patterns of hellenistic thought, radically transformed it in the process.

jason, my observation about science and constructivism has to do with the latter's understanding of science as a social practice, defined and circumscribed by cultural context, etc. and not some transcendent endeavor that defies the contigencies of history, context, etc. jamie's right, i get nervous when people say, 'science says,' etc. and this occurs on both the far right and the far left.

[Jason Hesiak]

Gotcha Dan. Thanks. What, then, do you take to be the "ousiolgoical" implications of constructivism? Again, I am highly entertained by that word - "ousilogy" :) I wouldn't say that an adherence to Vico, for example, excludes essences from the picture...?? Maybe slightly off topic to a degree...but...

[LeRon]

Jason,

Thanks! And I hope you like the Einstein section, its mostly about space and time, and what it would mean for Jesus to "come" (move through space?) "back" (from where?) "soon" (in a time frame relative to which observer?) No more hints. ;)

About substance metaphysics, the most detailed place I've treated that so far is in chapter 1 of my book on "Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality."

Dan,

It's been a while since I've had to deal with fundamentalists of that type... brings back interesting memories.

A bit ironic that they embrace a science that insists on a particular view of matter and force from 17th century classical mechanics, which is far from the ancient Hebrew or Middle Platonic Greek science that shaped Scripture.

By the way, I too try to avoid "science says" and typically make qualifications like "most scientists in this field interpret..." or "the dominant theories in contemporary biology indicate..."

This makes the dialogue more a journey of mutual exploration, since BOTH our social practices in some sense, forms of faith searching for new and better understanding.

LeRon