Testing Scripture: A Scientist Explores the Bible – by John Polkinghorne

Introduction and Chapter 1- Scripture

We are going to blog through the book: “Testing Scripture: A Scientist Explores the Bible” by John Polkinghorne.  John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS, is internationally known as both a physicist and a priest. He served as president of Queens’ College, University of Cambridge, prior to his retirement. He is founding president of the International Society for Science and Religion, a member of England’s Royal Society, and the bestselling author of more than thirty books. He was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2002.

Polkinghorne accepted a postdoctoral Harkness Fellowship with the California Institute of Technology, where he worked with Murray Gell-Mann. Toward the end of the fellowship he was offered a position as lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, which he took up in 1956.  After two years in Scotland, he returned to teach at Cambridge in 1958. He was promoted to reader in 1965, and in 1968 was offered a professorship in mathematical physics, a position he held until 1979.  He worked on theories about elementary particles, played a role in the discovery of the quark, and researched the analytic and high-energy properties of Feynman integrals and the foundations of S-Matrix theory .

Polkinghorne decided to train for the priesthood in 1977.  He said in an interview that he felt he had done his bit for science after 25 years, and that his best mathematical work was probably behind him; Christianity had always been central to his life, so ordination offered an attractive second career.  He resigned his chair in 1979 to study at Westcott House, Cambridge, an Anglican theological college, becoming an ordained priest on June 6, 1982 (Trinity Sunday).  He worked for five years as a curate in south Bristol, then as vicar in Blean, Kent, before returning to Cambridge in 1986 as dean of chapel at Trinity Hall.  He became the president of Queens’ College that year, a position he held until his retirement in 1996.  He served as canon theologian of Liverpool Cathedral from 1994 to 2005.

In the Introduction, Polkinghorne notes how important Scripture has been to him.  He says for more than 60 years he has read it every day (which is more than I can say).  He states that he has written this book in the hope that it will be helpful to those who are seeking a careful and thoughtful engagement with the Bible in their quest for a truthful understanding of the ways of God and the nature of spiritual reality.  He intends to explore the landscape of scripture in a manner that notes and takes seriously many of its features, both inspiring and perplexing.  But he is going to do so from the layman’s eye view and will not be giving an encyclopedic, academic, heavily footnoted, theological lecture-view.  He says this:

In reading Scripture we should expect to find both inspiration and information.  Christianity is a historically oriented religion.  Its foundational stories, Christians believe, are not simply symbolic tales given us to stir our imaginations, but are rooted in God’s actual acts of self-disclosure, mediated through particular persons and events.  Therefore, there is an evidential aspect to what we are told in the Bible.  Scripture offers us testimony that has to be evaluated in a careful and honest way when assessing the degree of historical accuracy that is embodied in its pages.

Yeah, look in the dictionary under “balanced view” and there’s a picture of John.  He will be coming at this topic from both the rigorous empiricism of a seasoned scientist and the devoted lover of a work of art that depicts his beloved.

The first chapter is entitled “Scripture” and Polkinghorne gives his view of the nature of the Bible.  This is a critical discussion which belongs first in the order since any conclusions he is going to come to will be based on this viewpoint.  Polkinghorne states:

To use an analogy that comes naturally to me as a scientist, the Bible is not the ultimate textbook in which one can look up ready-made answers to all the big questions, but is more like a laboratory notebook, in which are recorded critical historical experiences through which aspects of the divine will and nature have been most accessibly revealed.

For the Christian, the unique significance of the Bible is that it gives us indispensable accounts of God’s dealing with the nation of Israel and in Jesus Christ.  Without the scriptural record we should know little about Israel and very little indeed about Jesus.  These events happened in the course of history and the accounts we have of them necessarily originated at specific times and in particular cultural contexts.  Although I have come to appreciate the role of tradition and the unbreakable chain of testimony that the living body of Christ, that is to say the Church, provides, as a Protestant Christian and a modern, I place a particularly high value on the extant written record.  It is here, in my hands, and unlike human opinion, will never change.  I agree with Luther, that all human proclamation must be measured against the record of scripture.

Having said that, though, I, along with Polkinghorne, believe that a central, vital, and unavoidable task of all Christians is to interpret Scripture.  Scripture does not interpret itself, despite fundamentalist claims to the contrary, it is a task incumbent upon us as believers and cannot be shirked.  Each Christian must discern what in the Bible has lasting truthful authority, rightly commanding the continuing respect of successive generations, and what is simply time-bound cultural expression, demanding no necessary continuing allegiance from us today.  Absolutely no one is free from having to make judgements of this kind.  We all must interpret Scripture or accept someone else’s interpretation, there is no exception.

Even the most single-minded fundamentalist does not concern himself with planting two kinds of seed in one field or wearing clothes made of two sorts of material (Leviticus 19:19, Deut. 22:9-11).  Almost all Christians today treat Paul’s emphatic insistence on women covering their heads at worship (1 Cor. 11:2-16) as no more than a culturally specific way of expressing dignified respect that was appropriate in his particular society, but not binding on our own.  But equally, all Christians attach abiding significance to the verses that follow (23-26), which institutes the Lord’s Supper or Communion.  No amount of devotion and insistence on “every word God-breathed” absolves one from those decisions.  And those decisions are aided by scholarship and study of the world in which the scriptures were written and the cultural situations that influenced the original authors.

It is appropriate to be concerned with identification and reliability of sources.  We are “putting Scripture to the test” in a way that is perfectly appropriate.  If we believe that God acted in the history of Israel and in Jesus, it is of primary significance to try and establish as clearly as possible what those actions actually were.  Polkinghorne says:

Of course there is a significant power simply in the story itself, but there is an additional power present when it is perceived to be a true story.  We recognize this frequently in ordinary life.  The idea that a somewhat raffish German businessman might risk his life to save the lives of many persecuted Jews is a moving tale.  But what gives the story of Oskar Schindler its particular power and poignancy is that he actually was just such a man.  One of the most moving moments in the film Schindler’s List come at the end, when a long succession of Jews one by one place stones on Schindler’s tomb, able to do so because his generous and brave action has actually saved them from an otherwise certain death.

In the end, it comes down to realizing that although we are testing scripture, it is we, the readers ourselves, who are being tested by scripture.  We are no longer questioning the Bible but the Bible is questioning us, or rather, God, through the words of scripture is questioning us.  John 1:1-4 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.”  And John 1:14 further says, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”  The scriptures do not claim to be the “Word of God”, that claim is made only for Jesus.  The Bible claims that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

So what does it mean to say “All Scripture is God-breathed…?”  Does it mean that a human work is without any human flaws because God superintended it?   If that were true then how can the laundry list of Bible “errors” and “contradictions” like copyist errors (e.g. 2 Kings 24:8 vs. 2 Chron. 36:9 or 2 Samuel 8:4 vs. 1 Chron. 18:4), New Testament misquotes (Matt. 27:9-10 vs. Zechariah 11:12-13 and Mark 2:25-26 vs. 1 Samuel 21:1,6), NT reporting discrepancies (Mark 16:4-6 vs. Luke 24:4-6) and technically factual mistakes like cud-chewing (Lev. 11:6 says; And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.) and mustard-seed size be explained.

Even the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article 13, states:

 We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of materials, variant selections of material in parallel accounts or the use of free citations.

Or, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say: “Does it mean that the human flaws do not distract or detract from its TRUTH?”  After all, Paul was a Hebrew, and for a Hebrew to say something was “God-breathed” is a clear reference to Genesis 2:7 (Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being) and means what he (or one of his disciples) said in Hebrews 4:12—“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”  As I like to say:

God’s words reveals God’s Word to you, who breathes the breath of life into you and you, dead sinner, now become alive.  That is what God-breathed means.

We’ll let Polkinghorne have the last word:

The notion of an inerrant text is inappropriately idolatrous, but merely to regard Scripture as an antiquarian deposit that does not need to be taken seriously today would be an equally grave mistake.  Scripture, together with the worshipping experience of the Church and its accumulated traditions of insight, as well as the exercise of our God-given powers of reason, together form the context for Christian living and thinking.

Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes!
Chapter 9- Let the Students Speak!

By Denis O. Lamoureux

NOTE TO READERS: Denis has contacted me and proposes to hold a discussion session via Adobe Connect, which will be free to all interested Imonkers.  It’s a great opportunity to interact with the author of this book personally, and I appreciate Denis offering his time.  Denis begin his next semester January 8^th, so I’m thinking either Thursday night January 4^th or Saturday afternoon January 6^th.  Let me or Chaplain Mike know, in the comments, or in an email to Chaplain Mike if you are interested and which time you prefer.  When we firm up a date, I’ll get you some more details on how it will happen- Mike the Geologist.

Denis teaches at St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.   As noted on their homepage , St. Joseph’s College is a university community established by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton and affiliated with the University of Alberta. It is administered by the Congregation of the Priests of St. Basil, also known as the Basilian Fathers.  The University of Alberta is a public university while St. Joseph’s College is a Catholic educational institution.  Denis is an Associate Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta. His appointment is the first tenure-track position in Canada dedicated to teaching and research on the relationship between scientific discovery and Christian faith. Denis’ academic specialty focuses on the modern origins controversy.  Denis teaches courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level including a doctoral level reading course in science and religion.  All Denis’ courses are accredited by the University of Alberta.

Given the nature of Denis’ courses and his teaching position, I believe, gives him a unique insight into how young people of college age are integrating their faith with science.  Although in Canada surveys indicate only 15% of Canadians have any kind of creationist belief, according to Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis is set to open a branch of their ministry in Canada in 2018.  There already is a Creation Science Association of British Columbia.  There is still a sizeable group of conservative Christians in Canada who are opposed to evolution.  So in this chapter, Denis relates some of the experiences of his students as they deal with the “creation vs. evolution” issue.  Denis notes:

Most of the Christian students who enter my class say that to embrace their faith and accept modern science, they have to place each of these in separate compartments.  On Sunday mornings at church they are warned in sermons and Sunday school lessons of the dangers of the evolutionary sciences.  But from Monday through Friday in their science classes, they are shown overwhelming evidence that the world is billions of years old and living organisms have evolved.

Denis recounts one excellent student he had.  At the end of the course she said he had taught her that she was completely free from any dichotomy between creation and evolution.  And now she could “love God and embrace evolution”.  Another geology student sat through his entire thirteen-week course without saying one word.  Afterward he came to Denis’ office and revealed that he had entered the class with his “faith on a thread”.  Most of his family were strong young earth creationists, and his growing acceptance of modern geology was creating serious tension with them.  The compartmentalization was breaking down and he was almost ready to give up his faith.  This is the damage that harping on the supposed dichotomy of faith and science causes; sometimes the young person chooses to reject faith.  The family thinks they are “choosing this day whom to serve, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord” and “believing the infallible Word of God over the fallible word of fallen man”, and so on…  But what they are really doing is taking a stand on an “interpretation”.  And to a young man who is being educated on the empirical observations that he himself can see, it seems a choice between reality and denying reality.  It’s a poor strategy for encouraging a relationship with Jesus.  In fact, I’m convinced that young earth creationism is a recipe for creating atheists out of thoughtful young people.

Usually, on the second day of class, Denis introduces the Metaphysics-Physics Principle, as discussed in Chapter 3.  He does this to quickly challenge the conflation of science and atheism and the false dichotomy of creation vs. evolution.  Many of his Christian students are instructed by church and family to learn about evolution to pass exams, but to never accept evolution is true.  That is a terribly dysfunctional way to study biology, and virtually guarantees the student will experience cognitive dissonance.  I’ve heard all the humbug about “starting with different worldview assumptions”, but any interpretive grid can be challenged by the steady accumulation of measureable, observable phenomena.  I’ve had this happen to me professionally a number of times.  I’ve gathered data and interpreted them according to a certain set of assumption.  But as more data came in, it became apparent that the interpretive grid I was trying to impose was not going to be the best explanation of what was being observed.  To maintain my “worldview assumptions” would be to become a disingenuous ideologue.  Think tobacco company “scientists”.

About 10% of Denis’ students are atheists or agnostics.  One atheist student told Denis she could now see that evolution is not necessarily atheistic and was appalled at other atheists who tried to make out that atheistic evolution is the “official” view of science.  Of another atheist student, Denis says:

In one of the class discussions, he told us that in middle school he was continually teased and mocked by young earth creationist students.  He said, “If I would have been allowed to believe that God created plants and animals through evolution, I probably would not have become an atheist.”  Ouch.  Here was another heart-crushing moment in my teaching career.  Can we learn from this story?  Are Christian anti-evolutionists a stumbling block (2 Cor. 6:3) between God and evolutionists who are searching for him?

The Message-Incident Principle and the Principle of Accommodation (that God accommodated his revelation to the level of scientific sophistication of the ancient Hebrews) are another two principles that Denis observes help challenge the literalist and concordist view of scripture for his students.  Of another Christian student he had who said she hated the first half of the course, he says:

However, everything changed dramatically in the middle of the term once she was introduced to Galileo and his views on biblical interpretation in the “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.”  She realized that her issues with evolution and Scripture were no different than those regarding astronomy and the Bible in Galileo’s day.  In particular, she discovered the problem with scientific concordism.  It is impossible to align the ancient astronomy in Scripture with modern astronomy.  With this information, it was easy to for her to see that the Bible has an ancient view of the origin of living organisms, and as a consequence, Scripture does not reveal how God actually created plants and animals.

Denis feels strongly that these principles of bible interpretation reflect the reality of what the bible really is and are simple and straightforward enough they can, and should, be taught in Sunday school.  He got a note from a student one day after a class discussion on origins that, to this day, makes his heart ache.  The note read:

I think that the conflict between the Bible and modern science taught in Sunday school is part of the reason I lost my faith a long time ago.  Maybe, if we had been taught principles of biblical interpretation in Sunday school, I would still have my faith today.  As I am now, being raised in a mostly literal interpretation of the opening chapters of the Bible, I am too critical of Christian faith, and I don’t think I’ll return.

I know Ken Ham has said of these types of anecdotes that the young person should have been given more creationist apologetics, double down as it were.  That Christian students well drilled in creationist apologetics, he says, tend to keep their faith.  Well, Denis is enough of a scientist to know that the plural of anecdote is NOT data, but I doubt Ham realizes that.  Someone like Ham is far too invested in his creation ministry to ever be persuaded by any amount of evidence.  He has devolved (sorry!) to the level of the geocentrists and flat-earthers , which of course, he cannot admit to himself.  For the average staunch conservative evangelical, who views loyalty to the “literal” interpretation of scripture as loyalty to God, I still have a modicum of sympathy.  However, I cannot reconcile my faith with that view of science I know to be false.  I do not wish, nor do I intend, to give up my faith in Jesus, so the principles Denis puts forth in this book of the complementary relationship of God’s two books seems to me to be the best answer.

That being said, you staunch conservative evangelicals better not make a literal interpretation of Genesis a test of salvation, and you had better not allow that difference of opinion to break fellowship with other Christian believers.  Otherwise you are guilty of setting a stumbling block ala that student’s heart breaking note above (climbs off soapbox).

We’ll let Denis have the last word:

I am certain that you have figured out the title of this book.  It is only when Scripture and nature are taken together in a complementary relationship that they can say “yes” to evolution.  In dealing with the origin of the universe and life, God’s Two Books, complete one another in that each adds something not found in the other.  The Book of God’s Words reveals spiritual truths.  The Book of God’s Works offers scientific facts.  The Bible tells us who created and science shows how he created.  Together these two divine books provide an integrated revelation of our Creator, his creation, and us.