From Handmaiden to Polyamorous Relationship

The New Relationship between Theology & Philosophy...& Science

In 1925, John Thomas Scopes found himself in a courtroom charged with teaching evolution in a school that received public funds. William Jennings Bryant (who was a three-time presidential candidate) prosecuted the case. In the end, Bryant won, but due to a technicality Scopes never had to pay the fine.

This was a dramatic high point in the fight between the fundamentalists and the modernists. 

The fundamentalists believed that the Bible—and the Bible alone—was the source of divine truth. Nothing could override it.

The modernists believed that science and religion were in fact compatible. There was nothing wrong with accepting scientific theories, such as evolution, alongside the truth found in the Bible.

---

---

Same song, different verse

If you've been reading my articles for a while, I expect you may be seeing a historical theme. It's almost like the same issues come up again, and again, and again, just in different forms.

• St Peter versus St Paul

• Arius versus Athanasius 

Is it all starting to sound familiar?

Whereas before, the question was "What is the relationship between philosophy and Christianity?", now the question is "What is the relationship between science and Christianity?"

A new handmaiden?

Years ago, I read in a theology book that philosophy had lost its place as the handmaiden of theology. The new handmaiden has become science. (Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that reference. I think it was in Paul Lakeland's Postmodernity: Christian Identity in a Fragmented Age.)

After all, science, rather than philosophy, has become the primary way we understand our world. So, we have to consider it when we speak theologically. In fact, it's now unacceptable to have a theology at odds with science.

I would agree with this argument…up to a point. 

Yes, science has taken a place in the bed of (progressive) Christian theology, but I believe philosophy is still there. It's no longer about one being the handmaiden of another, but rather a polyamorous relationship between theology, philosophy, and science.

How Christians view science

It seems we have two general postures toward science.

One is the conservative stance that says nothing trumps the Bible, and scientific theories are just "theories" (which betrays a complete misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is). 

Then, we have those progressives, like myself, who embrace it.

A quick caveat

Before I go on, I want to emphasize that if a Christian suppresses the voice of science in their theology, it doesn't necessarily mean they are completely unscientific or will cling to a conservative political stance. 

For example, Evangelicals tend to have a more dogmatic theology, though they are not as extreme as fundamentalists.

That being said, there are, indeed, self-identifying Evangelicals who are scientists. (I don't know whether they hold progressive beliefs, which is likely. I just know they are self-identifying “evangelicals” whatever that means to them.) And, there are self-identifying Evangelicals who also identify as “progressive” politically.

But, I think my generalization still works: We have those who want to prioritize the Bible as the source of Truth and those who want to incorporate science and its scientific method. 

Here's an opportunity to learn from history

Tex Sample, in his book U.S. Lifestyles and Mainline Churches: A Key to Reaching People in the 90’s, has argued that the demise of the mainline churches began with the rise of the universities.

As more people became educated through higher education, they found their religious beliefs challenged by new, more critical ways of thinking. This led them to question and challenge traditional norms.

As more culturally-conservative churches pressed back against this new thinking, these culturally liberal folx decided to walk away from their churches. As a result, church membership declined, and the culture of churches in America slid to the right.

Up until this point, churches were balanced with their liberal and conservative wings. Sure, there were splits from time to time, but overall the cultural liberals were a part of the church and their voice was not only heard, but it had power.

Once the cultural liberals started to leave en masse, the remaining cultural liberals lost a lot of their power. Feeling disconnected and dissatisfied, more of them began to leave.

This, of course, only increased the power of the cultural conservatives.

Here we go again

I believe we are seeing the same thing in Evangelical churches today. In 2022, Researchers looked into why people were switching or leaving churches (in droves). 

Two reasons dominated. First, more than 56% of those who left said they didn't believe what the church was teaching anymore. Second, 30% disapproved of the way the church was treating LGBTQ+ people.

Here's another statistic that seems to dovetail nicely with this. For the first time in many years, the mainline churches overall actually got a bump up in membership (unfortunately, I can’t find the source for that right now). It seems that people were leaving the more conservative Evangelical settings for more progressive Christian places of worship.

Applying what we learn from the early church to today’s Christian theology

Remember the Petrine communities I talked about previously? Do you remember how they dominated the Christian scene early on, but then disappeared while more philosophical understandings of Christianity took its place?

The reason Christianity became popular was that it learned to understand itself through and speak about itself through the language of the culture in which it was immersed.

So, what is the “language” of today?

I think it's safe to say that science (including its scientific method) is the method of "reason" in our culture, which is to say the primary authoritative “language”.

It’s not surprising that progressive theologies, such as process theology, take into account the scientific insights we have about our world. In process theology, God is immersed in and interacting with the world that evolves, and so the God of process theology changes.

Yes, as the world evolves, God evolves.

Even though process theology ultimately flows from the perspective of process philosophy, science definitely plays a role in its formulation.

Meanwhile, Diarmuid O'Murchu more fully integrates theology and science in his book, Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics. His approach is to theologically interpret what creation is revealing to us through science. Whereas traditional theology tends to begin with God as a source of divine revelation, O’Murchu starts with creation and works his way out. This leads him to a radical reinterpretation of Christianity for our age. 

Science and “metamodern religion”

Science has not just joined with theology and philosophy in a Christian ménage à trois, but it is also a foundational element of what may be generally called “metamodern” religion. (I will get to the potential shift from postmodernity to metamodernity in a later article.)

Perhaps the most telling work at this time regarding how science relates to metamodern religion would be Emergentism: A Religion of Complexity for the Metamodern World by Adyahanzi and Brendan Graham Dempsey. (It seems “Adyahanzi” is a pen name, so I’ll refer to Dempsey as the author.)

Dempsey’s work is not a Christian perspective, but rather a spiritual one. Relying heavily on complexity science, he portrays the universe as continually becoming more and more complex, which is to say it is growing and expanding.

He sees the emergence of consciousness as part of that growth. For him, conscious beings are an expression of the universe through which the universe is coming to understand itself. 

In many respects, Dempsey's project is the same as O'Murchu's, which is a theological understanding of what science is teaching us about our world. Only he is coming from a spiritualist perspective, rather than a Christian one.

I believe his ultimate significance here is to show the extent to which science has become the authority for understanding our existence. That means…

Scientific concepts and methods have become the language of our culture through which we must come to understand and articulate our Christian religion if it is to make sense to the people of today.

Science must be a theological authority when it comes to understanding our world and who we are called to be in it.

• Evolution isn't just a theory. Is observable and understandable from a scientific perspective. As such, it is authoritative for theological interpretations.

• Genetics is observable and understandable from a scientific perspective. When it comes to understanding human biology, including things like sexual orientation, it is more authoritative than an ancient text with outdated biological understandings.

• Psychology and neuropsychology are the most scientific understandings we have of the human condition. They need to be used to authoritatively correct ancient understandings of the human condition that have led to considerable human abuse.

The age of science is here, and it's time for science to fully enter into a mutual relationship with theology and philosophy.

For Christianity to thrive again, all three need each other.

By bringing the three together, we get the best of all worlds.

• Science grounds us in a way that keeps us from flying off into fantasy

• Philosophy provides the most up-to-date frameworks for making sense of our spiritual experience

• Theology provides us with traditional concepts, questions, and conversations that challenge and inform our religious identities

Many out there consider Christianity to be delusional and unhealthy. And, there are good reasons for that in many instances. But, I don't believe it has to be that way.

My vision is to create a version of Christianity that is both meaningful and relevant for our day and age.

Baby and bath water in the Christian tradition

A lot of Christians really get hung up on tradition. They look at the way we've viewed things theologically and the way we've done things liturgically in the past, and then they tie Christian identity to that.

The assertion of the importance of tradition in many spheres has become downright idolatrous.

On the other hand, I think we have a tendency to reject that which has come before us as ignorant. Because our ancestors did not see and experience the world as we do, the assumption is they don't have much of anything to say to us.

I think a lot of this is a reaction to the idolatry that permeates much of Christianity. But it runs the risk of preventing us from hearing the wisdom of those who have come before us

We can learn a lot from our ancestors in the faith. But to do that, we first need to respect their spirituality and perspectives, even if we don't agree with where they land.

We can appreciate their questions and the way they wrestled with God. And amidst that appreciation, we don't have to accept everything that they say.

Recently, I have become fascinated with Meister Eckhart, a 14th-century mystical theologian. I find his perspective to strongly resonate with my own, even though he lived 600 years ago in a world far removed from today.

Next week, I want to talk about his mystical perspective and how I think it can speak to the 21st century.

Peace, Bo
www.evolvingchristianfaith.net

PS: if you found this article valuable, please press the "like" button. The more likes I have, the more likely the post is to be found on Substack by others.

---

Want to know more about my perspective?

Feel free to pick up my book, Drinking from an Empty Glass: Living Out of a Meaningless Spirituality on Amazon.

---

Please Help Me Spread the Word

As I try to grow my audience, I need your help.

If you know anyone who would find value in what I have to say, please let them know about this newsletter.

I would greatly appreciate it.