See also past Handiwork  

What Does All This Have to Do with the Gospel?

The title question has sometimes been posed to me in response to talks I’ve given or things I’ve written about science and religion. That can be just a way of fending off disturbing ideas like evolution, but the question itself is certainly appropriate. If the church’s primary task is to proclaim the good news of salvation by Jesus Christ, any religious talk that doesn’t somehow inform that task is a distraction.

Part of the problem is that science-theology dialogue has had to do primarily with the implications of science for a doctrine of creation, and creation itself has been seen as a mere preliminary to the real task of the church. God created the world and humanity, we sinned — and now comes the important topic, redemption.

Redemption’s Questions
But who are the “we” who have sinned and who are saved? Do evolutionary biology, psychology, and sociology have anything to say about that? Is it only humans who are saved, or should we pay attention to biblical language about new heavens and a new earth and ask how our knowledge of cosmic history should be taken into account? How are we to think today about those spoken and visible words by which the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection reach us? And what are we and the world saved for — to return to some perfect state in the primordial past or to be on the way to God’s future for creation?

Those are important questions about relations between scientific knowledge and the gospel. Adequate theological answers will require much more extensive discussion. Here are some preliminary suggestions.

Atonement
The idea of atonement has come under heavy criticism recently, in part because of objections to such ideas as sacrifice and penal substitution. But science is involved as well. As one argument goes, evolution shows that there was no time in which humanity was in a state of sinless perfection, and therefore no “fall” from such a state. Thus there is no need for atonement. If this were so, the gospel’s central claim “that Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3) would be invalid.

That is an old argument that has been used both by atheists against Christianity and by some Christians against evolution, but it is inept. Reconciliation with God — “atonement” — is needed because everyone is a sinner. Why we all sin is an important question, but an answer to it is not essential for proclamation of law and gospel.

But we can’t just leave it there, at least in a culture in which people know about the scientific picture of the world. We need a coherent theology that takes this picture into account. What we know of evolution does tell us that there was no sinless “state of integrity” in human history. This suggests that views like that of Irenaeus, in which Adam was created in an immature state, are more helpful than Western ideas about the perfection of the first humans. The origin of sin must then be seen as a failure of humanity to develop properly rather than as an abrupt fall. (A recent article of mine that develops this idea is at www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf . But the seriousness with which the Augustinian tradition has regarded the resulting “sin of origin” with which each of us begins still has a great deal of truth. Behavioral and social sciences can help theology to elucidate that sinful condition.

This only describes the problem. What about the solution, the saving work of Christ? That takes place through his cross and resurrection and indeed his whole life, which culminates in the Good Friday — Easter event, but how does that reconcile us to God? There are many theories of the atonement, such as Christus Victor, substitution, and moral influence, all with strong and weak points. The point now is not to develop a new understanding of the atonement from science but to let science inform our theology, and it may be best to let that happen indirectly.

Recognizing that science helps to inform our views of creation, we might emphasize the idea of the work of Christ as new creation or, in view of the evolutionary character of creation, a reorientation of creation. Again this has similarities with the ideas of Irenaeus. The God-forsakenness of the cross and the descent of Christ to the dead are the nihil from which the new creatio ex nihilo takes place.

The practical task of proclaiming the gospel can make use of illustrations drawn from science. Kent S. Knutson (His Only Son Our Lord [Augsburg, 1966]), in describing different atonement theories, spoke of a moral influence view as the “Magnet Picture,” with reference to John 12:32. A magnet draws bits of iron to itself and in doing so makes them into little magnets. That image could be elaborated in various ways in preaching and teaching.

More Big Questions
Speaking of preaching and teaching reminds us that the work of Christ must somehow get to people if it is to be effective in their lives. Lutherans have held that this should be thought to happen not by unmediated action of the Holy Spirit but through the means of grace, Word and Sacraments. God does not (at least normally) act directly, but the work of the Spirit is mediated by the proclamation of law and gospel and the water, bread and wine of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

There is an intriguing parallel between that divine work of redemption and God’s work in creation. Lutheran Orthodoxy has also held that God keeps the world running, and provides for our lives, not by direct action but by cooperating with created things, the First Cause acting through second causes. This parallel, and God’s sacramental use of materials of the world, points to the fact that salvation does not do away with creation but fulfills it. (And it is not just “natural ingredients” but those materials processed by technology, bread and wine, that are taken up in this action.)

Easter, as the “first fruits” of the resurrection and eschatological hope for creation, is difficult to explain scientifically, but such explanation isn’t our purpose anyway! We might aim instead at analogies from science to help us grasp these concepts, which is what Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 15:35-44. For example, I suggested in “Talking about the Future,” (Handiwork, Sept./Oct. 2003, pp. 34-5) that scientific ideas about time travel provide helpful analogies for the theological concept of prolepsis, which Ted Peters, in GOD — The World’s Future (second ed., Fortress, 2000), develops in detail.

We need to be concerned with relationships not just between “religion” and science but between the distinctive Christian message and science. I hope that the questions and suggestions I have made here encourage church leaders to explore those associations.

George L. Murphy, an ELCA pastor and physicist living in Tallmadge, Ohio, is an adjunct faculty member at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus and a pastoral associate at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Akron. His e-mail address is gmurphy@raex.com.