Naturally Better

My recent thinking about science and faith has left me vexed about the problem of natural theology. The conflict has arisen because many of my theological heroes, such as Barth and Bultmann, were adamant that natural theology has no place in the church. For instance, Barth taught, with the over-emphasis of genius, that “even if we only lend our little finger to natural theology, there necessarily follows the denial of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. A natural theology which does not strive to be the only master is not a natural theology. And to give it a place at all is to put oneself, even if unwittingly, on the way that leads to this sole sovereignty.”

There little doubt that natural theology has proved dangerous historically. Barth’s thoughts on the matter were profoundly shaped by the rise of the German Christians under the Nazi regime, who claimed that the Third Reich was source of revelation along side that of Christ in Scripture. And a previous post of mine mentioned the role of natural theology in supporting American slavery. However, do these past excesses demand that we foreswear all future attempts to construct a vital natural theology?

In his many writings, Polkinghorne has argued that to abolish natural theology “is to risk relegating theology to an intellectual ghetto.” And indeed, theology currently finds itself in such a ghetto, cut-off from the academy and isolated from much of mainstream culture. This is particularly true in Europe, where the rise of Barth’s theology has seemed to correlate with the decline of Christian participation and influence. In the Protestant countries of Europe, the Church is utterly irrelevant, powerless to address the major political, social, and cultural issues of the day. How much of this can be blamed on Barth’s “positivism of revelation”, which refused to listen to any voice other than its own?

There must be a better way, and it likely involves a modest degree of natural theology. Polkinghorne never uses science to prove or disprove theological propositions, but he believes that theology is immensely enriched by interaction with scientific thought. In many respects, his theology of science is similar to Tillich’s theology of culture, as both show an eagerness to engage with “the situation”. Such “situational” thinking will be required if theology is to move out of its self-imposed ghetto and reclaim the title of “Queen of the Sciences.”