A theological structure for discourse on nature and society

The foundations of western society are widely accepted to have been influenced by reformed notions of the individual, and at the very least the possibility of a personal knowledge of God. The discussion of revelation and reason that has been conducted so far rests upon some of these assumptions. The theologian Karl Barth often spoke of the freedom of God's being, and this freedom from any human construct is again assumed in Trinitarian ontology, and even in theology more generally. This does raise some important questions regarding what theology has to say to society more precisely. Important as God's freedom maybe the inevitable question of how he speaks, lives and engages with society must be faced. Far from detracting from previous material covered this concern does in fact enhance the meaning of it by bringing it's relevance to bear more accurately and widely. To carry meaning God's transcendence will have to be seen in his economy. Perhaps an overemphasis on God's freedom have more to do with the accumulated cobwebs of Protestant liberalism than the clear and incisive voice of Scripture.

This problem of the social mediation of theological knowledge has been thoroughly addressed by the eminent evangelical theologian Professor Alister McGrath. Exactly how this is carried out is of vital importance since it lays the groundwork for the very foundations of education. McGrath's 'scientific theology' trilogy is a detailed and complex theological engagement with the modern epistemology of the natural sciences. Of primary importance to McGrath, given his thesis, is the term nature itself. Indeed he devotes an entire volume to this introducing it with the following words,

'This opening volume clarifies the general position to be adopted, before moving on to a detailed engagement with the concept of 'nature', which is of such decisive importance in any discussion of the relation of the natural sciences and theology…'

He later goes on to conclude:

'This process of mediation (of social concepts) means that our perception of what 'nature' means – or what it means to be 'natural' is covertly shaped by a series of influences, which deny us direct access to an allegedly neutral or self-sufficient notion of 'nature' itself….Nature itself offers no ontology as a means of categorical justification. It is an interpreted and socially mediated category. For the theologian this raises the critical question: given that 'nature' is an interpreted and mediated notion, what interpretation is to be preferred'.

The argument proceeds to advocate on the basis of this reasoning that the concept of nature needs to be reclaimed by a doctrine of creation. Yet there is an uneasy sense at this point that this is not a secure foundation to proceed from. And indeed McGrath notes shortly after that 'nature' offers 'little promise as a basis – or even a dialogue partner – for a scientific theology'. Is there therefore no objective notion of nature to be found? Nature here is contrasted with creation in an unusual manner. The idea that nature has no objective basis not only undermines classical philosophical foundations, more vitally it is without Scriptural precedent. Essentially this means a rejection of socially agreed ideas of nature, since they are assumed to have a fundamentally subjective quality - they are a matter of interpretation. Proceeding from the more secure basis of revelation we may note this to be a view that does not have adequate foundation. The plain meaning of Scripture debunks this at several points.

The prophetic literature describes God's use of the natural constructs of other nations to discipline Israel in her disobedience and wanderings from the secure words of her Lord. This is indeed socially mediated to Israel but it has an objective character because of the Lord's use of it in comparison to the unnatural ways of Israel.  An illustration of this principle is provided by the prophet Ezekiel who speaks to Israel in chapter 5 v.5 of the book that bears his name,

'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the centre of nations, with countries all around her. Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the countries and nations around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees'.

Whether or not nature is a meaningful notion does of course depend upon the ultimate mediator of the notion. Without a prophetic standard there is no secure way of knowing whether one notion of nature contains a substantial body of truth that another does not. As can be seen from the above this involves more than simply being in possession of Scripture, but the insight of Israel's prophets on the relative value of the ways of life of nations and communities. Nothing could be more important and relevant than this in the current 2011 European debt crisis. This serves to highlight how vital the concept of socially mediated notions of nature are. As McGrath notes the Christian notion of nature is essentially undergirded by a doctrine of creation (see earlier treatment in this work), and therefore carries a distinct identity, but this needs to be rightly set against the socially mediated notion of nature that is carried by the various national institutions of a country. The ideas of nature carried by institutions are not socially mediated alone. According to the prophets they are in fact a kind of social scientific yardstick in the hands of the Lord. There are indeed question marks as to whether the natural sciences as a 'pure' focus can act as a sufficient measure to mediate the theological knowledge brought to us by the prophets, and by the Lord Jesus through the Holy Spirit's power. Could it be that the enlightenment focus on the sciences has caused us to miss some of the larger targets that the social sciences set their sights upon?

In all the interesting discussion on nature we should one important fact: that we are in fact often inclined to worship nature and so the gathering of the knowledge about it. It is all too easy to construct an idol out of particular types of knowledge. Even the concept of nature itself is thrown into relief by the revelation of the Lord. The prophet Isaiah notes in chapter 40 of the book that bears his name.

'Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as they were fine dust. Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires, nor its animals enough for burnt offerings. Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing'.

This is not cause to abandon the concept of nature in theology. But it is clear some strong re-evaluation is necessary! The focus in this verse is on the theological deconstruction of nature, to which McGrath may be referring. But if God is understood to be the prime force of good in the world we must find some way of understanding how it is that he is at work in nature and society. And there is plenty of evidence in Scripture to support the idea that God uses the pagan concept of nature to make statements in the world concerning himself, although for the Christian this notion can only remain distinguished when it is recognized that God sees nature with personal objectivity as the Creator and sustainer thereof.

God the Holy Spirit, philosophy and science

Philosophical boundaries of modern science

Broadly speaking Philosophy concerns ultimate questions of God and humanity. This is to take the subject at it's origin and continual influence down the ages.  There are question marks over it's fitness to address modern questions of human science beyond this point, however, and we will have to address these at the proper time.

Yet there are good reasons why philosophical boundaries for human science be set because of the divorce of the modern mind from ultimate questions of the human soul. The words human science have been deliberately used since there is a very real sense in which no science can be a science without the a priori existence of human beings. I don't think I shall receive many objections of substance on this point! This brings us into immediate conflict with the modern assumption that the natural sciences- physics, biology and chemistry may exclusively adopt the title 'science'. What is often in mind where the word is used is a very particular interpretation of the word ‘science’.

I trust I will not be misunderstood at this point. I wish to contend for the fruitfulness of the ‘natural’ human sciences not to undermine them. My concern is only to lay out the boundaries for the participation thereof. And so the burning question is? What is science and what is the relationship it should enjoy with humanity? This seems to be a question that has been left largely untouched in the rush to engage in and pursue the knowledge of science.

Interestingly the great theologian Aquinas referred to all areas of human knowledge as the 'philosophical sciences'. We, like Aquinas, would do well to consider the broad theological and philosophical contours with which he considered them. But this will off course have to be considered in a very different way. Aquinas’ understanding of the philosophical sciences was dependent upon the Aristotleian corpus, a significant amount of which has been proved inaccurate by modern science. My argument is not that modern human science has not turned many aspects of our understanding of the world around, but rather that it has not overturned the fundamental tenets of our humanity and the boundary lines that have first of all been given us by God.

The intrusion of ‘science’ into these historical and cultural boundaries must be sharply dismissed by a redefinition. This dismissal should be understood as a cutting back in order that a more robust environment be created. The only way to set about this is to use the concept of human science. This will enable science to grow in right relation to the core issues of our world.

Monism

What we are really grappling with when we consider the boundaries of natural science (meant in the sense of general knowledge rather than  biology, chemistry and physics in particular is the problem of monism). As far as introductory boundaries are concerned this is an issue of philosophy of mind. The modern mind has been captivated by monism – the reduction of all things into their biological, physical and chemical constitution. Hegel described the main philosophical issue of his day as a ‘loss of Spirit’. And this is the same general problem that we encounter in ours, although we may mean different things by the phrase. The principle issue of theological engagement today is the nature of the Holy Spirit. Reality is not simply material. This is the philosophical assumption of the headlong rush into the pursuit of science which our society has often followed without realizing it.

May God help us. We are in the presence of a mighty Spirit! Let us press on to acknowledge him first of all and be guided and directed in all we do by his presence and glory!

The World Beyond

Is Plato’s claim to have knowledge of a world beyond sense experience doomed to failure?

Plato claimed to know the world of the forms – a world of ideals, an eternal world that contains the prototypes of reality. This he discovered through his academic endeavours and in particular through the rational discipline of Mathematics. He assumed this to be a world whose underlying premise was the Form of the good. This question assumes that there is a purpose towards which this knowledge was directed, which is likely to have been understood by Plato in terms of the divine craftsman or Demiurge as he understood him. So is Plato’s theory doomed to fail?

First of all we can see there are a number of strengths to Plato’s theory – perhaps this is why it has stood the test of time. The theory of the forms enables us to grasp the difference between the transcendent and the immanent, the eternal and the temporal. It assumes that there is a knowledge that is true regardless of the different types of sense experience that we may encounter down the years. It may therefore lead to the type of education that can prepare the philosopher for the challenges of politics, as indeed it has been seen to so do. Supporting this is the underlying moral purpose of the simile of the cave that Plato used to describe Athenian society. The illusion of ignorance combined with poor moral concept do have some hope of being cured through a knowledge of reality – the world beyond. This is the message of Plato’s cave.

Secondly, from a more educational rather than societal point of view – Plato’s theory can help us distinguish between opinion and knowledge. Plato believed there to be a form of goodness, justice and beauty. This was predicated on the unqualified concept of the forms rather than being a changing aspect of the experience of particulars, which are all qualified by personal subjectivity and opinion. A true knowledge can only be gained by knowing the Good, and this can be found in the world of eternity beyond. This enables us via comparison to properly know our experiences of goodness and justice.

On the other hand there are some more controversial aspects of Plato’s theory such as the reference to necessary knowledge being via the forms. For example science can quickly understand particulars through observation and sense experience without necessarily having to go through the process of contemplating the forms. For example it would not make sense for a scientist to have to go via mathematics to examine the human cell. A sufficiently powerful microscope would suffice. This illustrates the problem of Plato’s divisional theory. Knowledge may well be projected towards a realm of ideals that lie in the future. Analogies are used to describe this world. But in fact because of the vast spatial and time differences involved they may keep us from developing discoveries today. This is not to say that the forms don’t exist in some way, but rather that they may be more dynamically interactive with the world of sense experience.

Another issue that began to be identified was one of person. Although Plato does have a concept of personal reality in connection to the Forms, (the Demiurge or the divine craftsman we have mentioned) there is little development of this notion in his thought in the Republic, which relates more to abstract knowledge that has no definite human nature. How then can it be a knowledge that succeeds if it does not relate to human nature in someway? In as much as Plato’s thought is pure abstract knowledge that relates to an undefined transcendence it is doomed to failure. Augustine began to address this point in developing a Christian theology and western psychology. Because of the way in which Christ the second person of the Trinity remained both transcendent as God and yet shared our experience and time as a man with a human nature, then knowledge of a world beyond can have a successful outworking today. To a modern world of greater possibility Plato’s theory might also be understood to be intrinsically unjust since it is asks us to base society on a world that is intelligible but not sensible. How can an intelligible realm succeed in creating a just society if the concepts it believes itself to be founded upon are not rendered sensible to people in some way? This must surely be one of the most serious political objections to Plato’s theory of the forms.

In conclusion, Plato’s theory of the forms has had undoubted success in helping to create an intellectual climate for the modern world. Since Plato believed that particulars can at least in principle participate in the Form of the Good he provides hope for some kind of successful future. However, because of the divisional and hierarchical character of the theory it lacks a clear personal apprehension of human nature derived from a world beyond. As in the past so in the modern day a Christian theology is required to enable Plato’s theory to make sense today.

Christianity & Ethnicity

Bringing a Kingdom emphasis

The very prominence of aspects of religious identity indicates a shift from classical sociologies of structure (i.e. the influence of Christianity on politics and government) to the more post-modern variety of choice and personal identity. A clear example of this is the formation of independent Pentecostal African churches to whom such choices have not been as widely available up until recently in the UK. We may also note that this emphasis persists amongst the English in certain types of personal preference in their religion.

Some may say we can afford to remain apart. We are now prosperous. We already have everything we need. But this is not the right apostolic emphasis. Paul says

1 Corinthians 4 v.8

‘Already you have all you want! Already you have become Kings- and that without us! How I really wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you’.

The history of Israel indicates a development from honouring the presence of God in the temple towards honouring his presence as King in the nation.

Secularisation in the UK

If secularisation is defined as the loss of the social significance of Christianity our personal identity will need to also be of structural significance to overturn a secularised agenda in the UK and to bring about revival. In other words some consideration of the political impact of African churches is needed.

How important then is ethnicity in religion? We will consider 2 views. One is the vital significance of ethnicity and the other that ethnicity is relatively unimportant.

i) Ethnic identity is vitally important in religion

Africans (many of them being African-Caribbean) were mainly Christian on arrival but had to deal with racism in religious institutions. Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims had to establish their own places of worship. Religion was part of their difference. For Africans then religion was not a significant part of their ethnic difference, at least as expressed in their religious affiliation.

Yet charismatic and Pentecostal African churches with their own church affiliation have grown rapidly in recent years. These are those who are in general agreement with the evangelical community in the UK with some doctrinal differences. Since 1998 (Christian research) found 3 new churches per week. Half this growth is from Black churches. Also of note is growth in Chinese, Croatian, Portuguese and Tamil churches. By contrast 3 older churches per week in the UK have been closing.

Religion is not simply a matter of spiritual fulfilment for these new churches. They are necessary in order to affirm the significance of ethnic identity in religion. Not only is this necessary for these churches themselves they are vital to encourage and realign ethnic religious identity among the English. New churches of this particular type should be celebrated as a positive development, and a movement towards the mutual affirmation of one another’s ethnic identity as a deeply rooted aspect of faith. Ethnic identity in religion matters a great deal.

ii) The case against

There are still significant examples of historic churches in which Africans are participating. E.g. Anglican Church in Peckham, which was recently featured in songs of praise. Many other denominations have a black membership. In principle therefore it is not necessary for there to be such a strong assertion of ethnic religious identity. The new African Pentecostal churches are overstating their case.

The adoption of different styles of worship in these churches would tend to suggest the incapability of the white churches to assimilate the ethnic difference or vice versa Maybe it is better to simply remain independent and not raise the issue too much. Focusing on ethnic difference simply highlights an unbridgeable cultural difference. It really isn’t that important. Things are fine as they are.

What is more there is too much emphasis on experience in Pentecostal churches, too much exuberance, dancing and joyful expression. This contrasts too deeply with historic denominations. Some reserve and order is an essential aspect of the character of the UK. By contrast Africans are louder, more expressive and ‘fit’ the Pentecostal faith more.

Secondly the ‘religious’ aspect is also too extreme. For example Pryce (1979) notes how African churches encourage hard work, sexual morality, prudent management and strong support of family and community. But some may well argue that although these are the same Christian values as the white evangelical churches there is a cultural and religious difference in the way that this is undertaken in African churches.

Conclusion

Simply to present a cultural and ethnic contrast is an inadequate way of dealing with the issue. Ethnic identity is too much of an essential aspect of how God has created people to be to be ignored or sidelined. What is required, under God, is a more general appreciation of our common humanity in which there are exciting differences that are to be mutually affirmed. Ethnicity in Christianity really does matter.

The difference in culture between African and English culture that exists has on the one hand been over-emphasised and on the other not celebrated enough. The great benefits of dynamic interface have been passed over. Are they being passed over by you?

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is not simply added on to the believer's experience of the word of God and baptism. Rather, in the New testament era he is the exhaustive and comprehensive initiator of the whole of church life. The baptism in the Holy Spirit (BHS) is a deluge of the Spirit leading to a greater realization of his person and presence, & continued gifting and empowering for service. It is Jesus himself as the life-giving Spirit that baptizes his people in the Holy Spirit (Mark 1 v.8, 1 Cor. 15 v. 45)


BHS should not be limited or tied to the prophetic and teaching ministry, nor to conversion initiation, nor separated from these aspects. He cannot fully be the Spirit among us without these, but it was the apostolic encounter that is crucial for our understanding of the Holy Spirit. Yet Scripture indicates the conference of the Holy Spirit may not occur in the neat ordered time frame in which the apostles themselves encountered it. The coming of the Holy Spirit was so distinctive that those following the apostles needed to receive the Holy Spirit together with the born again encounter. Since he is the same Holy Spirit for believers taught by the apostles after Pentecost, this was the norm. A Scriptural example is given to us in which the Holy Spirit chooses to effect the inward born again experience together with the baptism of the Holy Spirit before baptism in water has taken place by the more direct application of the word of God (Acts 10 vs. 44-48).

BHS comes with clear evidence to mark its effects -the speaking of other tongues (Acts 10v.46, 19 vs. 1-7, Acts 2  v. 4, 1 Cor. 14 v.5). This evidence does not separate God's people from a Christian and evangelical past but leads the church in the direction of the future. What we are saying here, then, is that BHS is not limited to any particular stage of Christian initiation, but rather incorporates and integrates all aspects of the Christian life in a directive eschatological experience. BHS sums up church history realizing it's essentials and significance for the present. This does not preclude Scripture, church history, reason and tradition as a continual resource of the Spirit. It rather prevents, urges and contends for the Christian church not to become bogged down or misdirected into particular and exclusive trajectories set down in the past. Is it necessary to receive and understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit today? More so than ever. 

BHS is not the exclusive experience of a particular denominational persuasion. This is the interpretation it has been given, it is not the essential character of the mainstream divine encounter of the apostles. May God be pleased to renew and empower us to today by a fresh realization of the baptism in the Holy Spirit!


Works consulted:


M. Green, 'The Holy Spirit- Baptism and Fulness', Wycliffe Hall lecture, Oxford, UK
S. Ponsonby, 'God inside out', Kingsway Publications, 2007
M. Turner, 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit', Grove Books Ltd., 2000