Science in Christian Perspective
Christian Responsibilities in Science*
RICHARD H. BUBE
Department of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
From: JASA 21 (MARCH 1969): 2-8.
A Christian active in science has responsibilities that are peculiarly
his because
of his commitment to Jesus Christ, and through Him, to the scientific
investigation
of the natural world. These responsibilities lie in the areas of (1)
philosophy-motivation
and purpose; (2) practice-professional and personal integrity; and
(3) service-social
and political involvement. Some of the questions that must be faced
are the following.
Is the scientist called to describe and understand nature, or is his function
only to control and manipulate? How is the support of science related
to the potentialities
for purely practical results? Can science be properly used
apologetically in Christianity?
What is the scientist's responsibility in view of likely applications
of his work?
Is the development and support of science a necessary application of Christian
principles to a world of need and suffering? Some suggestions for answers are
offered, but the significant answers must be worked out by the
interacting scientific
and Christian communities. The ASA belongs in the center of this
interaction.
INTRODUCTION
Character of ASA
The ASA is an affiliation of men and women who have made a commitment of their
lives and energies to the Lord Jesus Christ, and who, in the course of working
out this relationship, have made a commitment of their lives and
energies to the
scientific investigation of the natural world. This character of the
ASA establishes
a unique opportunity and a unique responsibility for its members, who are part
of two usually mutually exclusive communities. It is the view of this
paper that
the members of the ASA, and the ASA as an organization, are called to
be a bridge
between the scientific community and the Christian community. The fulfillment
of this calling requires twoway traffic across the bridge: effective
communication.
Competing Views of ASA
There are many members of the ASA, who, I believe, would accept this statement
of the character
and purpose of the ASA, at least in general outline. But there are
also many members,
I fear, who regard this view of the ASA to be in competition with
what they consider
to be a more primary and historically justified view of the ASA. Such members
regard the ASA as an affiliation of Christians who are determined to use their
association with science as a means of defense for the Christian
faith. Thus the
ASA is viewed more as a militant apologetic force far Christianity, than it is
as a reconciling intermediary between scientific and Christian communities. I
believe that it is important to realize that not only does the view of the ASA
as a bridge between communities include the view that the ASA should be a vital
force in Christian evangelism and defense of the faith, but it offers a way of
procedure that is more likely to be met with success. It also offers
ASA members
an opportunity to participate in that aspect of reconciliation that is uniquely
theirs.
Need for a Central Position
The fact of the matter is that if ASA members and their colleagues throughout
the world do not play
this reconciling role between scientific and Christian
communities, there is no one else to play it. They are the only ones who know
from the inside what it means to trust oneself wholly to Jesus Christ
and to partake
of the sacraments signifying our union with Him, and at the same time know from
the inside what it means to properly evaluate the potentialities of scientific
investigation for an understanding of the natural world. Theologians
who attempt
to evaluate science, or scientists who attempt to evaluate theology, are under
the best of circumstances simply unequal to the full demands of that task. Once
we obtain a vision of our position in the scheme of things as Christian men of
science, we cannot do otherwise than thank God for the central
position to which
He has called us.
Categories of Problems
In its function of reconciler between Christian and scientific
communities - ultimately
of course involving the reconciliation of individual men with God through faith
in Christ - the ASA is called upon to face questions and problems in a number
of different categories. For the sake of our present discussion, we have chosen
to summarize these in terms of three categories: (1) philosophy - or
what is the
purpose and motivation for scientific activity from a Christian point of view;
(2) practice-or how does a Christian man of science maintain professional and
personal integrity; and (3) service - or what social and political
concerns have
n legitimate claim upon the Christian man of science. It should be
clearly recognized
once again that these areas of activities are not offered as
alternatives to Christian
evangelical efforts, but at all times assume a basic evangelical
motivation. They
extend beyond this particular orientation, however, to the
realization that Christian
commitment conveys a Christian responsibility, not only in evangelization, but
also in the working out of Christian principles in the world. To achieve this
we need not become all things to all men; we need only to be what we
are: Christian
men of science. We need only show that Christian men of science take this world
as seriously as the next, and are willing not only to preach Christ but also to
live Him.
Basic Questions
What good is science? What is the connection between a scientific
theory and the
real world? Can the scientific method lead to truth? Is a scientist a committed
investigator of the workings of the natural world, or is he a
high-grade technician
only, seeking to manipulate and control the natural world, but never
able to understand
and describe how it really is? These are typical of the many
questions that have
been raised as to the real purpose and motivation for pursuing science. Since
appreciating the purpose for any discipline or activity is a necessary step in
evaluating its success and defining its potentialities, it is essential that we
consider the purpose of science from a Christian point of view.
Philosophical Positions
Because the questions posed above are hardly new, there are a number
of attempts
to answer them in different ways from different historical positions
and presuppositions.
There are the empiricists or positivists who argue that science consists simply
of the ordering and arrangement of sense data, with no correlation between this
activity and the "real world," which is usually considered
an irrelevant
concept. There are the idealists who argue that the concepts and descriptions
of science are purely subjective, being the creations of the mind rather than
any objective description of the natural world itself. There are the linguistic
analysts and the operationalists who insist that the most important
thing to ask
is not, "What is the meaning of a scientific statement?" as
though the
statement really had cognitive significance for the real world, but
to ask instead,
"How is that scientific statement being used?" None of
these positions
does real justice to the Christian and the scientific perspective.
The positivist
underestimates the theoretical side of scientific activity, the contribution of
the scientist's creative ingenuity. The idealist underestimates the
experimental
side of scientific activity, the necessity of correspondence with experimental
data. The operationalist underestimates the capability of science,
the bona fide
potentiality that science has of providing approximate knowledge, but
definitely
knowledge nevertheless.
The possibility that operationalism could fulfill the role of a
Christian philosophy
of science has received special attention during recent years in
evangelical circles
because of the advocacy of Cordon H. Clark. In correlation with the thesis that
true knowledge comes only through Scriptural revelation, Dr. Clark has denied
that knowledge can be obtained through science about the natural world. He has
argued that "the laws of science do not describe the workings of
nature,"
and that "the laws of physics therefore are neither discoveries
nor descriptions."
Dr. Clark defines his view of operationalism as follows,
"Operatioualism identifies the purpose of science not as description but as manipulation. Laws are not cognitive statements about nature, but are directions for operating in a laboratory. They do not say what nature has done; they say what the scientists should do . . . . With or without a priori concepts, science is not a cognitive enterprise."1
There is unfortunately not the space here to devote to analyzing Dr.
Clark's line
of argument in arriving at these conclusions. It seems to me,
however, that these
are arguments and conclusions that could be reached only with great difficulty
by one who had actually practiced science. Whereas the claims and
potentialities
of science must be carefully defined and its limitations understood, the claim
that science does not at least provide a description of nature,
albeit an approximate
description, is alien to any scientist with whom I have ever
discussed this question.
A second point worth noting in passing is Dr.
Clark's use of the concepts of linguistic analysis in
interpreting scientific laws as directions for operating in a laboratory, not as statements about the real world. Now it is
common practice
for consistent linguistic analysts to apply these principles to all
forms of language,
particularly to theological language. The statement "I believe
in God,"
is taken to state nothing about the reality or existence of God, but
only to assert
a particular orientation of life views on the part of the speaker that may be
expected to guide him in a given course of action. That this should be the only
function of language in the ease of theology would, I am sure, be immediately
and properly rejected. It seems to me that the statement about the
absolute noncognitive
nature of scientific language should be similarly tempered.
As opposed to these various philosophical positions that are inconsistent with
a fully biblical and a fully scientific perspective, I would suggest
the position
of Christian realism. This is a position which fully integrates the limitations
and the potentialities of science. It recognizes that the scientific enterprise
is limited by the finite capabilities of the human mind and the
finite capabilities
of human experimentation, and thereby recognizes that a scientific description
must always be an approximate description. As I have written elsewhere,
"Change and correction, however, are of the very nature of science. Science increases in understanding of the physical world and of man by establishing proper conceptions and eliminating improper conceptions. At no time does science claim to he in possession of the whole truth; in fact, science is quite clear in insisting that it is never able to be in possession of the whole truth. But the process of science is a building, a growth, and an evolution that builds upon that which is established and does away, with that which is an improper description of nature,"2
Or again the limits and the possibilities of science are summarized,
"Not everything can he understood by the scientific method. Mao cannot approach God ultimately through the application of scientific methodology. Nor can man derive God by reference to the facts of experience. Science is not an independent method of knowing God, or of becoming like God by understanding all things. Rather, it is a valid instrument in interpretlog revelation. The techniques of science are those that are suitable for interpreting the natural revelation of God."3
Christian realism recognizes that science must describe in terms of
natural categories,
and thereby by definition excludes large areas of life and experience from its
legitimate domain. It recognizes that science can never achieve that
perfect understanding
of the natural world that would be properly described as having
attained the truth.
But it also recognizes that science is a legitimate enterprise for establishing
knowledge about the natural world in terms of natural categories, and that this
description comes progressively closer to a reliable description of
the workings
of the natural world as science advances. Christian realism thus
acclaims science
as a worthwhile endeavor in understanding God's creation as well as
in controlling
it, affirms the mandate of Genesis to man to have dominion over the world, and
prevents the profession of science from degenerating into a mere
practice of technology.
Purposes of Science
The purposes of science are threefold: (1) to describe the natural world in an
orderly and useful fashion, so that it becomes possible (2) to
understand in terms
of natural categories the workings of that world, and so that it
becomes possible
(3) to control and change that world according to the needs of men
and the knowledge
given by God.
The description of the world follows from a feedback relationship between theory (man's creative assimilation and proposal for models of the real world) and experiment (man's creative investigation of the actual phenomena of the real world). Such a description must always be in terms of an idealized and simplified system that falls short of the real situation in complexity and completeness. But this is a deliberate limitation on the description of the natural world, which the scientist himself imposes, and which at least to some extent is at his disposal to extend or reduce. I cannot see that this situation, in which a scientific model is an approximate description of the natural world, is greatly different from the theological models derived from the Scriptural revelation. If the physicists' idealized pendulum model is not exactly reproduced by any real physical pendulum (because of the existence of factors that the physicist usually neglects, although he need not do so if he wishes to expend enough mathematical effort and computer time!), then the Scriptural model of God as father is also not exactly reproduced in either human fathers or in the full attributes of God. We understand that certain significant attributes of the real pendulum are describable in terms of the idealized model; this is sufficient for us to recognize the partial truth in this model also. Truth is that which conforms to reality. The scientist checks his partial truths by contacting the reality of the natural world through experimentation. The theologian cheeks his partial truths by contacting the reality of the whole Scriptural Word of God through study, exegesis, and synthesis.
We need not become all things to to all men; we need only to be what we are: Christian men of science. We need only to show that Christian men of science take this world as seriously as the next, and are willing not only to preach Christ but also to live Him.
The scientist's description of the natural world is usually not an
end in itself,
but is directed toward two goals. The one goal lies in the area of the mind and
of knowledge: the understanding of the world.
The other goal lies in the area of activity: the control of the world.
The goal of understanding the world has a time-honored history in
Christian thought.
The possibility of "thinking God's thoughts after Him" has
given dignity
and encouragement to the profession of science. One of the strongest
drives that
man has, and one that can be legitimately associated with his creation in the
image of God, is the drive to understand. Non-human animal species may attempt
to control their environment, but I think it is safe to say that no
nonhuman seeks
to understand the world. It is of course necessary to remember that a
scientific
understanding is only a partial understanding, only an understanding in terms
of natural categories. But to argue that a scientific understanding
is no understanding
is as grievous an error as it is to argue that a scientific understanding is a
complete understanding.
The goal of controlling the natural world also has a time-honored position in
the area of Christian service. Of this area we shall have more to say a little
later. The impiication is that just as faith must lead to works if faith is not
to be reckoned dead, so knowledge must lead to service if knowledge
is to be reckoned
wisdom.
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
Basic Questions
By whom should science be supported? To what extent should science be
supported?
What is the relative value of basic research vs. technological applications of
science? To what extent should imminent possibility of practical results be the
criterion for the support of a scientific endeavor? In what ways does
the scientist
bear personal responsibility for the uses to which the results of his work are
put? These 'cry practical questions, of interest to Christian and non-Christian
scientists alike, all offer a challenge for the application of
Christian principles
to the responsibilities of science. Since decisions on all questions of policy
of this type are based ultimately on basic presuppositions derived
from a general
world view, these are questions about which the Christian man of science must
be concerned.
Support of Science
Up until the last century the scientists of history have either been
independently
wealthy or have been the recipients of financial aid from some patron who was
wealthy. This was a workable system when scientists numbered only a
small minority
of the total population. Today, however, we are told that 90% of the scientists
who have ever lived are alive now. Many of these scientists are
supported by private
industry in this country, and presumably are paid out of profits made
as a result
of their scientific work-at least over the long period. But a large proportion
of scientific work is supported directly by the federal government out of tax
money, i.e., by the ordinary tax payer. What fraction of the national
economy can safely be committed to the support of science, and what fraction
must be committed
to maintain desired progress in the future, are questions that are
currently the
subject of debate all over the country as well as in the Congress.
Basic Understanding vs. Immediate Results
The relevance of our previous consideration of the purpose and potentialities
of science becomes more evident in our present discussion when it is realized
that the mood in the country today seems to be strongly against major support
for basic understanding and more and more directed toward immediate results and
hardware. Why, it is argued, should the taxpayer's Money be spent for studies
that may never amount to anything; is it not far better to support
those aspects
of technological development that promise some immediate practical results? If
one's philosophical view downgrades the role of science in obtaining
understanding
and views science only as a technique for the manipulation of nature, then the
practical argument is strengthened by the philosophical framework.
There are at least two reasons why a definite balance must be
maintained, however,
between the effort to obtain a basic understanding and the effort to
obtain practical
applications. The first reason is that science is a valid technique for gaining
understanding, and the increase of understanding must always he to some extent
the concern of the collective society as well as of individuals. The second is
that continued technological advancement can occur only on the basis
of a continued
growth in understanding.
Nuclear Physics: A Case in Point
The need for a balance between support for the sake of basic understanding and
for the sake of technological advancement is illustrated by the case of nuclear
physics. Every year brings the request for a larger and more
energetic instrument
to probe deeper into the heart of nuclear structure. Needless to say, each new
instrument requires a greater and greater investment of financial capital. How
can this continued escalation be justified, and how long can it be
accommodated?
Has not the pursuit of nuclear physics already given mankind sufficient power
to destroy himself and his world in the hydrogen bomb? To what extent
is it justified
to pursue, perhaps endlessly, the chase for the smaller "particle",
the more "elementary" constituent of matter, the nature of the forces
between such constituents? When the next requested nuclear engine
requires a major
fraction of the national economy to be committed to produce it, will
that be the
time to call a halt?
National Defense: A Major Science Supporter
A large fraction of scientific research in the country today is supported under
the aegis of contribution to the national defense. It is a well known fact that
it has been far easier to obtain funds for research if it could be correlated
with the defense program,
than if only a vague correlation with general human welfare could be
established.
The unfortunate result has been that much research that might more
properly have
been supported as a basic contribution to understanding, has been, as
a practical
matter, supported as a contribution to the military defense effort. This means
that the choice of research subjects and the direction of research effort tends
to be more or less directly influenced by the military needs of the country. Is
this an issue about which Christian men of science should be concerned?
Space vs. Earth Programs
Let us consider just one more example: the space program. A
substantial financial
investment has been devoted for a number of years by the national government to
activities designed toward putting a man in space for some extended period of
time. To what extent is such a program ethically defensible, when
such great needs
persist here on this earth? Can the expenditure of billions to put a man on the
moon be justified when the expenditure of millions would prevent men from dying
here on earth? It is sometimes argued that valuable byproducts occur as fallout
from space research that are useful for life here on earth. Some of
the research
my own group carries out at Stanford is supported by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. The issue is whether or not the present concentration
on space projects is not a very expensive way to produce these
fallout beneficial
results, and whether or not this is a fruitful way to utilize the
nation's resources.
Responsibility of Scientists
Being a scientist is a difficult task, especially today. For a time it seemed
that scientists could be simply scientists, investigating the marvels
of the natural
world with scarcely a thought for the results of this investigation, trusting
to the "innate goodness" of human nature to put the results
to a humanitarian
and productive use. There was a kind of Pollyannish optimism that the problems
of the human race could be rather immediately solved by the
application of scientific
research and technology, and that once a few of the more serious materialistic
needs of the human race could be removed, this same "innate goodness"
would express itself in appropriating the results of science for the
good of all
mankind. It is difficult to see how anyone can retain this misguided optimism
today. It has become abundantly clear that every advance with potentiality for
good has a potentiality for evil that is proportional to that for good. It has
also become clear that while men of good will are attempting to
harness the potentiality
for good, others are more busily proceeding to harness the
potentiality for evil,4
The scientists, the producer of the potentiality, can no longer sit
back and let
the non-scientist make all the decisions about the uses of it.
Scientists resist
becoming politicians and activists; but do we today have any real choice?
But it must be noted that the responsibility of the scientist goes beyond even
the continuous effort to
preserve the beneficial use of his work. For there are an increasing number of
cases in which the bestintentioned applications of scientific
research have nevertheless
resulted in severe problems for the human race. Such applications fall in the
area of scientifically-induced changes in the environmental
conditions to alleviate
need and suffering, which in themselves become threats to human
welfare. Success
in reducing the death rate and in prolonging the lives of the elderly produces
problems of overpopulation that can be met only by complementary
success in birth
control and re-utilization of the elderly in meaningful capacities. Success in
providing jobs and conveniences through industrialization produces
smog and water
pollution that can be met only by strict controls and the constant search for
solutions. Emphasis on the value of the human being as opposed to the value of
the "things" of the natural world (forests, mountains,
rivers, canyons
etc.), as discussed earlier in this meeting5-an emphasis strengthened by some
of the strains of the Christian perspective-has led to serious
interference with
ecology and a loss of both practical and aesthetic benefits. In all
of these areas
the Christian man of science is called to exercise his it's conciliative
and redemptive
function as an ambassador for Christ.
AREAS OF SERVICE
Science in the Service of Evangelization
The presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the unregenerate
man is at once
both an extremely simple and an extremely complex responsibility. It is simple
in that the message is one that anyone can understand and appropriate
for himself
with the uncluttered faith of childhood. It is at the same time complex because
the message must be brought to those in need, it must be brought in a fashion
and snider conditions in which its true meaning is clearly discernible, it must
triumph in spite of the caricatures of it that exist in most minds today, and
it must overcome all the abuses and misuses to which men have subjected it in
the past. Because of his position as a member of both the Christian
and the scientific
community, the Christian man of science has a unique responsibility.
The Christian scientist is called to serve the Christian community particularly
by participation in education and in propagation. Through education he has the
job of making sure that the Christian community has an accurate understanding
of the limitations and of the potentialities of science. There are as
many caricatures
of science in the Christian community as there are of Christianity in
the scientific
community. He is responsible for budding an understanding of the
differences between
pseudo-science, science, and scientism. The ability must be developed
to discriminate
both against pseudo-science, the attempt to use scientific form
without scientific
integrity to defend Christian ideas, and against scientism, guilty of the same
error in attempting to discredit Christian ideas. He has the
opportunity of using
the scientific perspective on the relationship between objective reality
and natural
law to combat the prevalent tendency to subjectivize and relativize
all experience
and values today.
The Christian man of science is also called upon to he the possessor
of "beautiful
feet" (Isaiah 52:7; Romans 10:14-17) as he assists in the propagation of
the Gospel: The Church still lags far behind in its utilization of modern means
of communication for bringing the Gospel to that vast majority who will never
(humanly speaking) he found inside church walls. Missionaries at home
and abroad
have constant need for help from scientifically knowledgeable people
for the solution
of daily problems. Fortunately there are such organized efforts as
VITA (Volunteers
for International Technical Assistance, Inc., College Campus, Schenectady, New
York 12308) and MARC (Missions Advanced Research and Communication Center, 919
W. Huntington Drive, Monrovia, California 91010) which serve as focal
points for
Christian service in these areas. Members of the ASA are called upon
as individuals
and as a corporate body to support and to become involved in
activities in which
the knowledge of science is put to work to present and interpret the Gospel to
men in need of both physical and spiritual salvation.
Science as an Expression of Christian Life
It is historically true that to a large extent the development of
science in the
Western world has had close links with the perspective on the world
derived front
the judaeo-Christian faith. It is the emphasis on the objective
rational reality'
of the natural world that gave rise to the philosophical presuppositions that
nurtured science, it is the Judaeo-Christian emphasis on the value of
the individual
and the value of work that fostered the industrial revolution and the
development
of scientific technology.
The responsibility for a Christian confronted with need and suffering allows for no other response than to alleviate it. The fact that human nature will pervert the best in life does not mean that the best should not be sought. There is after all no hope for human nature, with or without science, if left to its own devices.
I believe it is also a valid thesis that the development of science
is a necessary
Christian response to the existence of need in the world. There are those who
sometimes argue that we would all be better off if the first scientific advance
had been nipped in the bud, and we had been allowed to continue as a peaceful agrarian society.
Recognizing some of the evils that the pursuit of science has introduced, as we
mentioned in the previous section, they argue that the potential
evils far outweigh
the potential good. If medicine has saved lives, it has produced overpopulation
and starvation. If physics promises new sources of power through
nuclear energy,
it has produced the hydrogen bomb that is able to destroy' us all. If
the automobile
represents a major emancipating factor in the life of the individual,
it has fouled
the air he breathes through its exhaust. If improved crop control has increased
the harvest yield to feed more people, it has endangered lives with insecticide
poisoning. If our homes are more physically comfortable and
attractive, the pace
of life accompanying an industrialized society gives us less time to enjoy them
and contributes to the disintegration of the family. If sensitive detectors are
developed to improve X-ray diagnostics, the same technology has been
used to produce
gun sights that permit people to kill at night. The list can be
continued at great
length, each example illustrating our previous point that the creativeness of
human nature in fashioning evil from good has no limit.
And yet I would argue that the responsibility for a Christian confronted with
need and suffering allows for 110 other response than to alleviate it. The fact
that human nature will pervert the best in life does not mean that
the best should
not be sought. There is after all 110 hope for human nature, with or
without science,
if left to its own devices. When science in service to mankind is viewed as a
redemptive instrument on the natural level in the hands of a man committed to
Christ, the purpose and practice of science is established in the context where
it belongs. Even as the kingdom of God exists here and now in the
hearts and lives
of those who are committed to Christ (Luke 10:9) even though the full
realization
of the kingdom yet awaits (Hebrews 2:8), can we not suggest that the physical
redemption of that kingdom is committed here and now to the banns of those who
are committed to Christ, even though the full physical redemption also awaits
(Romans 8:19-21)?
If therefore the Christian response to human need requires the development of
science as one way to meet that need on the natural level, do not Christian men
of science have a double responsibility? First they have a
responsibility to see
that the pursuit of science is directed toward the alleviation of
need and sufferbig,
and second they have a responsibility to see that the evil effects of
scientific
advance that must inevitably occur in our imperfect world, are counteracted and
neutralized.
Perhaps I may be forgiven if I conclude this discussion with one
further quotation
from an earlier writing: 6
''Christianity affirms that the response of the Christian to suffering in the world should he like that of Jesus, who came to heal the world from sin and all its effects. His response to suffering was to declare the good news of the gospel, that salvation and healing were being brought to the world through Him and through His disciples both then and after Him. His call to the Christian is to face the existence of suffering in the world, to recognize that God can use even suffering for the good of His children, and to do everything in one's power to bring an end to every kind of suffering in the lives of men. One of the great privileges of science is to play a role in this program; one of the great tragedies is that sin so consistently corrupts these same findings of science. The Christian man of science has a commission to work for the utilization of I nature in the alleviation of suffering in the name of Jesus Christ."
CONCLUSIONS
There is a parallel between the Christian church and the ASA. The conservative
Christian church has for a long time been concerned in minute detail
with matters
of such sophisticated theology that their relationship to daily life ceased to
exist. I suppose that I will tread on someone's toes (but I tread lightly!) if
I indicate that such matters as sprinkling vs. immersion; infant vs.
adult baptism;
pre- vs. post- vs. amillenialism; infra- vs. supralapsarianism; pretribulation
vs. post tribulation rapture; church laws against playing cards and attending
movies; dispensationalism vs. historic orthodoxy; open vs. closed
communion; women
preachers vs. women silent; yes-even the classic outlines of the historic
Armininian-Calvinistic
controversy-all of these have exercised the strength and ability of the church
in controversy to such an extent that the relationship of the church
to the problems
that people in the ordinary walks of life were daily asking was
almost forgotten.
Today we are experiencing a vital re-awakening of evangelical
Christians, an awakening
not so much attributable to the church as in spite of the church, an awakening
forced upon evangelical Christians by the events of the day.
Christians are realizing
anew that the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not meant to be a verbal
exercise, with preaching leading to salvation through intellectual
assent to doctrine
alone. They are realizing that the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a
message to people in need, a message that offers both physical and
spiritual help
through faith in Christ. We, of the comfortable middle-class white Protestant
congregations, realize how often we have said in effect, "Go in peace, be
warmed and filled," (James 2:16) but have not involved ourselves in their
need. And, as God gives the strength, we are changing if ever so slowly.
In many respects the ASA has often acted in a manner similar to that
of the conservative
Christian church. Conceived to be an instrument of that church, albeit with the
special weapons afforded by some familiarity with science, the ASA
has often exhibited
the characteristics of a closed community, debating issues that few outside of
the closed community of the hyp-erorthodox church continued to
consider vital and
meaningful. Mistaking science for scientism, pseudo-science has been called in
to do battle. Accepting a mode of biblical interpretation, those concerned have sought to
combat scientific
developments that appear to be in contradiction. While the fruits of
science continue
to challenge the most creative contributions of Christian men of science, with
the front pages of today's world covered with concerns related to the hydrogen
bomb, radioactive fallout, population explosion, smog and water
pollution, waste
of natural resources, threatened destruction of forests and rivers,
social effects
of computer technology, organ transplants, possible freezing for
future survival,
mental disease, the genetic code and the understanding of life,
continued harnessing
of science for military purposes, extrasensory perception and the validity of
research in parapsychology-still we have too often been guilty of refusing to
face up to our role in the world today. As members of the church, we
love to retreat
from the sinful unpleasantness of the secularized world around the church into
the sinful pleasantness of self gratification. So also as members of the ASA,
we love to retreat from the monumental task that staggers us as Christian men
of science, into the safer areas of evolution, Adam, and flood geology. I hear
voices from all quarters of the ASA saying, "Yes, we must move
out into the
world as Christian men of science," If the ASA is to fulfill more than a
tiny fraction of its unique opportunities, I believe these voices
must prevail.7-11
©1969
REFERENCES
1 The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, R. H. Nash, Editor,
Presbyt. and Reformed Pub. Co., Phil. (1968), pp. 37-43.
2The Encounter Between Christianity and Science, R. H. Babe, Editor,
Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, Michigan (1968), p. 35.
3Ibid., p. 69.
41t is somewhat remarkable how the fallacious optimism about the "innate
goodness" of human nature lies at the root of so many of
mankind's attempts
to solve its problems. The liberal Democrat believes that if the
causes of poverty
and hunger are removed, then the innate goodness of men will assert itself and
remove the causes of strife and discord. The conservative Republican believes
that if the individual is left free of control to develop according
to his individual
initiative, the innate goodness of his human nature will load him to share with
others for the benefit of all. The Communist is relying on the innate goodness
of human nature to finally pull off the ideal of the socialist state.
In religions
thought, Modernism and Christian Science presuppose a basic goodness
of the human
heart upon which religious understanding and progress can be based. It seems to
me that neither the biblical nor the historical record offers much support for
such optimism.
5Panel Discussion of "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,"
L. White, Science 155, 1203 (1967) by W. Frair, E. S. Feenstra, D. Munro and F.
Cassel.
6R. H. Bribe, Ibid. p. 64, 65.
7Barbour, Ian, Christianity and the Scientist, Association Press,
N.Y. (1960)
8Moberg, David 0., Inasmuch: Christian Social Responsibility
in 20th Century America, Eerdmaus, Grand Rapids (1965)
9Pollard, William C., Physicist and Christian, Seabury, Greenwich
Coon. (1961)
10Schaller, Lyle E., Community Organization: Conflict and
Reconciliation, Abingdon Press, N.Y. (1966)
11Yaroold, C. D., The Spiritual Crisis of the Scientific Age,
Macmillan, N.Y. (1959)
*Presidential address, AS±t Convention, Calvin College, Grand
Rapids, Michigan,
August 22, 1968.