Reviews for Human Significance in Theology and the Natural Sciences: An Ecumenical Perspective with Reference to Pannenberg, Rahner, and Zizioulas

The average rating for Human Significance in Theology and the Natural Sciences: An Ecumenical Perspective with Reference to Pannenberg, Rahner, and Zizioulas based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-09-19 00:00:00 MIchael Beasley The question of significance reflects a central human question. Who am I? The reality of a modern world sets this question against the backdrop of a cosmic awareness which increases our sense of just how small humanity is in relation to it. Scientific progress has also pushed us to an age of biological and anthropological understanding which continues to provide unique challenges to the questions of meaning and purpose that accompany a dialogue of human significance, specifically from a theological perspective. Author Christopher L. Fisher has offered a thesis within his book Human Significance in Theology and the Natural Sciences (hereby referred to as HSTNS) that demonstrates his belief that human beings have "vital significance in the cosmos, and this significance is visible to both theology and science." Given this visibility, Fisher believes that both science and theology can bring necessary perspective to the conversation from within their respective fields by adopting a critical anthropocentrism. Fisher's push toward a critical anthropocentrism presents two primary ideas of concern. The first is the idea of humanity as the center or focal point of creation, which demands attention from both theological concern and scientific perspective. Is it appropriate and necessary for theology to present humanity as the pinnacle or height of the creative act so as to retain a proper theo-centric focus? And if it is, can this fit with scientific perspective, which tends to minimize human existence within the evolutionary process? The second primary idea is that both fields (science and theology) operate within specific boundaries, and in a discussion of significance often overreach these boundaries. Primary Idea #1: Humanity as the central or focal point of creation Establishing the two key doctrines of theology as the "imago Dei" and the "incarnation", Fisher moves forward to a critical anthropocentrism as that which attempts to "seek to incorporate appropriate sensitivities, criticisms, and nuances into any justified form of anthropocentrism." He describes the activity of anthropocentrism as "modern Christian theology in dialogue with modern science." Fisher sees the concepts of the imago Dei and the incarnation as human centric ideas grounded in a greater theo-centric reality. From a theological perspective, humanity is the primary means through which creation can share in fellowship of the triune God as its primary goal. This is represented in a Christology that grounds itself in the incarnation. For this reason it is necessary to declare the uniqueness of humanity within the order of creation. Pannenberg sees it as uniquely human to be open to transcendence, as the "human reaches beyond the given to an impulse that can only be defined by human terms." He also sees humanity through the lens of the imago Dei, which is the image of God represented in humanity. It is the incarnation that allows us to fulfill this destiny and to operate as image bearers of the transcendent in a physical world. The imago Dei cannot be realized outside of human creation, and can only be fully realized in the incarnation. Both Pannenberg and Rahner retain a sense of historicity in their equal conviction of a human centric reality, although Rahner is not quite as bound by his historicity. He sees history as a single event (the incarnation and resurrection) in which "science and history can help reveal aspects of a doctrine (of human centric reality leading to a theocentric understanding) previously unavailable." He views human knowledge as incomplete and "grounded in the idea of becoming". Rahner continues to flesh this idea out as a yearning that is observable within theology as a relationship with the divine, and likewise in science as the reflection of a radical new level of evolution centralized in the human form. "What science has shown us is what we already knew theologically, that the universe is much larger than we originally thought, and in relation to the infinte God we remain finite." This yearning can see evolution as a process that leads to Christ and recognition of human significance in a vast Universe. Rahner and Pannenbergs both agree that physical and spiritual reality must be seen as unified in correlating ideas, even if from distinguished approaches. The challenges that surface in trying to bridge theological and scientific approach to human centrality and significance mostly revolve around the issue of causality. Modern, rational scientific views attempt to deconstruct the necessity of human significance by showing that the universe does not demand transcendent causality. Fisher interacts with these ideas in light of the issues surroundings rational thought, which becomes evident in a discussion of boundaries to follow. As well, the question of continuity within creation, an idea that evolution sees as relevant and important to reality, demands appropriate attention. That is, is it necessary to distinguish humanity apart from non-human creation or to ask the question of human significance at all? Fisher, in dialogue with all three writers, argues the question of human significance is relevant as the part of human nature that distinguishes itself within reality. This fits with Rahner's thought that humanity is preconditioned towards a yearning to become. Theological discourse can help illuminate transcendent reality limited within the scope of science. When dealing with spiritual and material definitions, one must deal with human centrality in relation to a definitive sense of the source of causation, namely God. When one raises humanity to a level of significance, this automatically blurs the boundaries of our relation to the transcendent. Are humans divine, and if so how does this divination coincide with God's existence as a higher power? Is the divine connected with the material or does it stand separated from material realities? And if it stands separated, to what degree does the divine interact with the material world in terms of causation and relationship? Fisher addresses the issue of seeing God represented within the material as leading towards forms of dualism. Christian theology tends to speak of God as both in and above creation, which also recognizes a place of contention within evolution itself. Does the process of evolution contain an upward movement towards our eventual divination in Christ, or is our significance imparted from above in an act of grace? And how do we bridge an upward movement with the messy nature of evolutionary process. Some may argue there is poor evidence of a clear and directive purpose. All three writers understand that human significance is reflected in our inherent "response ability. Fisher spends time weighing this unique relational ability with evidence from the animal world in his own reflections, and likewise comes to the conclusion that one must contend both theologically and scientifically with the reality that the human represents a singular, unique example within the universe of this level of awareness, even if simply on a material level. Zizioulas contributes to this thought as well, pushing us to reconsider the fall in respect to the place of death and evil. He sees mortality as a preexistent reality within creation that demands an eventual completeness and fullness in God. We were intended to move towards this fullness within a natural creation, but the fall also demands a redemptive act. Zizioulas believes "the only way to overcome mortality is to find a link between creator and created without erasing the differences between created and creator." In this sense he attempts to bridge the theological perspective of original sin with the material concept of evolution in a way that avoids dualism. This also lends itself to the ongoing question of a preexistent purpose versus reactive action. If Christ was the intention from the get go as the full reflection of humanity in which the universe is able to recognize it's relationship with the divine, the incarnation must be that to which humanity was purposed to move towards from the beginning. This can either mean that the fall was a part of the intended plan, or that the fall provided an interruption in our journey towards fullness of relationship with God. Each viewpoint plays in to the material reality of the evolutionary process in different ways with different challenges. Primary Issue #2: Boundaries Within Science and Theology The second primary issue looks at the idea of boundaries within the field of science and theology. Fisher spends time examining the idea of naturalism, suggesting that an emphasis on rational and empirical thought birthed by the enlightenment has inhibited helpful dialogue between scientific and theological discourse. Rationalism requires truth to be universal, and self-evidencing, whereas transcendent theology is specific and revelatory by nature. Fisher provides three primary reasons for the collapse of naturalism, which is circular and incoherent reasoning (a foundation requires reason, and reason requires foundation, a reality that forces one to break their own rules), culturally influenced reasoning as opposed to universal truth (a failed attempt to link perception and reason), and the limitations of specific analytical technique, which is seen in the idea that "if the supernatural is taken to be the reality distinct from the material creation, then a study of the regularities of the creaturely world will not necessarily even see supernatural reality." Fisher goes on to suggest that "Biology can at best hint at something, theology can reveal." For Pannenberg he sees the boundaries blurring as he attempts to link material history with a transcendent relationship. And while arguably Pannenberg doesn't move this far, Fisher gives focus to the dangers of dualism that can arise when one tries to fit the unique focus and claims of one discipline in to the claims of another. Fisher notes this in his critique of Paannenberg's argument, and suggests that this limits necessarily how science and theology can compliment each other from within defined boundaries, although should not inhibit us from seeing the two worlds in cooperation. Science can see in humanity a rational soul, but keeps it on the level of process with the rest of nature. It does this because it is unable in itself to recognize the transcendental nature of humanity (found in the revelation of Christ). Rahner attempts to define and refer to "soul" in a way that can fit both theology and material definitions, but recognizes that both fields need to work from within their limitations. One of the key issues of rationalism is that it demands for both fields of thought to speak from outside of their limitations in order to contain relevance and truth. This is the idea that Fisher presents for a move towards a critical anthropology that can acknowledge the limitations of each field while also respecting that both can speak to areas that the other cannot in helpful ways. Fisher, speaking of a Copernican anthropological view, writes, "The typical view of many in the natural science is that man has no purpose in the cosmos for the simple reason that the universe has no purpose. Knowing today how massive the universe actually is, it is not easy to think of humans as that for which all of it exists. It is easy to perceive humanity as an accident and a marginal phenomenon, especially when pairing this with a product of evolution that also has to work with numerous and improbable accidents." Often this becomes the motivation for theology to separate itself from science as incompatible. However, it is both important and necessary, according to Fisher, for theology as the study of transcendent truth to recognize how this truth fits with the corresponding reality of the material. It is possible to pursue a sense of compatibility while also staying true to the conviction that each discipline demands. It is this possibility that motivates Fisher and all three writers with whom he dialogues. Rahner recognizes that seeing a directive nature and source in the created order is a theological perspective. This is an important recognition, as it describes the limitation of both while also recognizing that spiritual reality by nature is that which gives meaning and direction to the presence of human yearning, and therefore stands as a higher reality. Another important sentiment that Fisher speaks to is the issue of respect. The influence of the Enlightenment has led to a disparity and separation between the two groups. A mutual respect must exist in so far as belief in the transcendence can speak to truth from a metaphysical level with equal conviction and authenticity as science can speak to the material reality. A part of this argument suggests that both to a degree are observable on a rational level, but that transcendence is limited on the level of the observable in ways that the study of the material is not, and that the material needs transcendent theology in order to see existential reality. Concluding Reflections and Thought In reading through the articles interacting with Pannenberg, Rahner, and Zizioulas, it is easy to see how important and necessary this sort of dialogue becomes for our modern world. The discussion reflects the attempt to bridge the historical and transcendent realities as equally connected within material and supernatural action. In doing so, Pannenberg for example, from within his historicity appears to require transcendence to speak through an observable, testable event (in the incarnation). However, he also sees this event as a moment in history which becomes the means through which we can observe the greater truth of all things on a transcendent level. We can recognize the limitations within Pannenberg's process in measuring successive transcendent activity against reality if the supernatural if it becomes too tightly bound to the rational measurement of the material, but this does not negate the attempt to bring the two together in a meaningful way. It does highlight the tension though that would most likely be evident in any attempt to correlate the two disciplines. It seems to me that much of what causes attempts to bridge the two worlds to be difficult is that faith will always be required on some level in an open approach, and faith is a risk. I believe this is a risk that can ultimately strengthen faith and scientific discourse. Rahner and Pannenberg come together on the idea of the incarnation as a preexisting reality, something that Rahner articulates to a fuller degree as that which allows for the ongoing act of revelation within the material world. He views the process within the material from the vantage point of the incarnation, a transcendent reality that can only been seen from within the transcendent act itself. It is interesting to see an approach that can respect science while holding to faith in the unseen on a higher level in a way that can also reflect humility. Transcendence speaks to a higher reality because in Christ the mystery of God can hold precedence over human knowledge. Rahner also presents the idea that humans were elevated so as to allow for the incarnation, a part of God's central means of developing a relationship with His creation. In this sense humanity by nature must be distinguished from the rest of creation, but as this book challenges us towards, this also moves us into a sense of continuity of purpose with the non-human creation. I found one of the more intriguing lines of thought in Zizioulas' exploration of natural evil and his perspective of the fall. Zizioulas follows a similar Christology and focus on the incarnation, but expands his view within the evolutionary framework to examine how the fall relates to our view of ecclesiology. Looking through the lens of the hypostatic union of the trinity, he moves on a foundation of personhood as defined within community. The fall itself is related to any move away from the hypostatic union as the model for what gives shape to human significance, and is described as any move towards individualism that sees self above the other. Zizioulas falls short of fully dealing with the concept of original sin. I question how the fall can still be represented within a history that reflects it's outcome long before it occurs as a historical reality. Original sin seems to demand either to be a pre-existent reality authored by a transcendent source, or else found in a singular, historical/transcendent context. To remove it from this seems to cause it to disappear, and I wonder if theology can still retain a coherent sense outside of a clear view of original sin. His theory of a "pre fall" world existing within a mortal and finite universe with merely the potential to move towards fullness in Christ however remains intriguing. Within creation ex nihilo it is freedom of choice that interrupts our potential. It is in to this that the incarnation speaks as a truth that can fit in to the reality of both science and theology, certainly in addressing natural evil. In this idea we can be freed from the weight that embodies a fall from a perfected state, and good and evil can be see in light of our intended progression to fullness in Christ. This can have powerful implications not only for providing a compatible correlation between theology and science, but also for the function of the relationship between God and humanity. In a sense, original sin is melded in to a natural theology, which allows humankind to be seen as inherently good with the potential to grow in to a perfected state only in Christ. Fisher suggests this idea might be even more faithful to scripture than traditional approaches to the story of the fall, and the idea is convincing. The other dynamic that this idea of a pre fall mortal world represents is the potential relationship between human and non-human creation. Centralizing and exalting human significance comes only as the means through which all of creation will eventually be perfected. We all struggle together in a mortal world, and we participate in the groaning as we wait to be perfected. Speaking of this relationship, Fisher suggests that scripture holds a certain dichotomy in defining the exaltation of humans alongside value of the creaturely world. A faithful treatment of scripture demands human uniqueness from within response-able relationships, but in doing so retains a grasp on the relationship with God and human creatures and all creation. This has direct implications for the ethical and moral treatment of this creation, which for some can include the notion of killing for food, a point to which scripture itself remains relatively silent as it merely alludes to certain ideals. There is a feeling though that this issue carries a good deal of weight in approaching appropriate dialogue between science and theology, certainly given the implications it has for bridging the continuity of creaturely and human characteristics in the material world. The necessary move to establish humanity as a unique demonstration within the material and transcendent is convincing, but as the book HSTNS also demonstrates, the end result of human significance is a humanity that stands for creation. Humanity is elevated as the imago Dei so that the incarnation can effectively work to redeem all of creation which is not capable of speaking to moral and ethical reasoning on it's own. In this sense, becoming aware of our nature puts the responsibility on humanity to move towards a

Review # 2 was written on 2019-02-25 00:00:00 Edward Edmonds Helpful book. Nothing earth shattering that Authors like Stetzer or Webber don't cover. Also, took a little longer to get through than I liked, so it is a bit wordy. Still, a handy resource for one's missional library.