Theologian Richard Hooker was one of the most influential
English Clergymen of the 16th Century. King James I was quoted by Hooker's
biographer as saying, "I observe there is in Mr. Hooker no affected
language; but a grave, comprehensive, clear manifestation of reason, and that
backed with the authority of the Scriptures, the fathers and schoolmen, and
with all law both sacred and civil." John Locke quoted Hooker repeatedly
in his Second Treatise on Civil Government and was greatly influenced by Hooker's
staunch defense of reason.
It is Richard Hooker who defined Theology as “the science of
things divine.” And indeed the very word “Theology” contains the same suffix
used in many branches of science, such as biology and geology. The suffix
“logy” is in fact a latinized form of the same root as the Greek “Logos”. Logos
is translated “Word” in the first chapter of the gospel of John when it says
“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” but I need hardly tell this
distinguished group that it means so much more than “word”. It refers to the
very essence of rational discourse which is a hallmark of science.
Even though we speak of what we do as “Science” historically
the study of the universe and the biota and material things in it have been
considered to be the “Natural Sciences”. This is in contrast to the “Social
Sciences” which include such things as Sociology. I might as well throw in the
“Applied Sciences” such as Engineering.
My point is that “Natural Science” was not originally and
should not be now the only kind of science which exists. Disciplines of study
which use the Scientific Method to ascertain truth can and once were considered
to be forms of science. The Scientific Method consists of noticing some puzzle
or problem, or paradox, and proposing a hypothesis which is offered to solve or
explain it. This hypothesis is then tested in some way which either confirms or
rejects the hypothesis. The conclusion is based on the results so obtained.
Often the conclusion calls for more testing to further refine our
understanding. Reason is the primary tool used at each step of this process.
Back in Richard Hooker’s day, Theology was considered
another branch of science. This was because the approach to truth discovery was in
essence the same, in particular before experiments in Natural Science became
more systematized. Many institutions of higher learning, even to this day, offer
degrees in the “Science of Theology”.
The natural sciences studied the physical universe.
Theological Science studied God and His Word. Both areas of science had their
premises- starting points which were not challenged but rather assumed to be
true as a necessary pre-condition to their work. For example, in natural
sciences we assume events in the natural universe happen in accordance with
laws which are discoverable and unchanging. If we didn’t believe that, none of
our tests would be worth doing- they would not bring us any useful information.
We assume some things about the universe are true. We assume the universe
reflects the true state of reality and is not lying to us, though we can
misunderstand it for a very long time. This is a part, the less objectionable
part, of what is called “Methodological Naturalism”.
The Science of Theology also has its premises. That God
exists, that the Bible is divinely inspired, that the three great Creeds of the
Church are true. Like nature to the natural scientist, scripture also reflects
the truth of reality, a higher reality, and it is not lying to us, though we
can misunderstand it for a very long time. These are the premises of Theology,
at least they were in Hooker’s day.
Now the natural sciences have made a great deal of progress
in explaining and understanding our natural world since the 16th century.
Though they kept the same premises in those four or five centuries, their
particulars were constantly being challenged and refined. Sometimes they wound
up changing course abruptly if new insight or new evidence demanded it. But
because the practitioners did this, as time went on they got closer and closer
to the “actual” truth. Their course corrections are legion but they get smaller
and smaller as time goes on.
What I fear has happened to Theology is that many corners of
the church have quit it altogether. Oh they may still use the word, but the
“logy” has left it. The process by which the truth is honed and refined is long
absent because the particulars are too seldom challenged from the inside even
as the premises are being increasingly and unfairly savaged from the outside.
In the natural sciences challenging and improving on existing particulars is
strongly encouraged. In the clerical institutions conformity to what has been
handed down is the singular pathway to advancement.
One of my great fears for natural science, as science
becomes more systematized and standardized, is that too many particulars will
be shoe-horned into posing as premises. Then less and less will be on the table
for improvement and natural science will risk becoming stagnated, however long
its good run. We must have our premises, but to declare everything we think
that we know a premise is to risk an end to further rational inquiry in that
area even if it turns out not to best way to describe reality. Most ideas ought
to remain particulars.
I do not suggest that the Church re-think its premises any
more than I would suggest those of us in the Natural Sciences waste time
continually re-examining our premises. But I would urge the church to re-think
some of its particulars, just as practitioners of the natural sciences have
done to great effect for the last few centuries. At least some in the church
should have the calling, and the duty, to see if they might bring the
particulars of their fellowship into greater and greater conformity with the
reality of the subject matter- in this case the Word of God.
I am calling on some of you to become the Richard Hookers of
our generation. I am calling for a return to the Science of Theology in order
to improve humanity's understanding of God’s Word in light of the new things we
have learned, both about scripture and about the natural world in the last four
centuries. There is a great need of you. As Natural Science has raced ahead
over the last four centuries theology has become stagnant. I believe its
premises are still true, but its particulars have not improved through the
rigors of the proto-scientific method which was so characteristic of the men
who founded the great strains of Christian thought.
There are presently some findings from natural science which
have troubling implications to some particulars of most of the church regarding
Adam. I do not view these challenges to the particulars as upending the
premises of the Christian Faith. When scientists get an unexpected result in
one of their experiments in the natural sciences, they remain confident in their
premises even while they re-consider a given particular. So should the church.
Of course Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology already has
scripture-grounded solutions to the problems I refer to. What we need from you
is to do theological science. To examine these and other proposed solutions,
and compare them to your own observations from the text. Then reject, accept,
or refine them according to a reasonable accounting of scripture.
