Polkinghorne Quotes

Some brief thoughts on the writings of John Polkinghorne

A Series of posts from An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution

Author:
Steve Martin

Document Version: 1.5

Last Updated: February 6, 2010

This document is a compilation of weblog posts; the individual articles remain the property of the author. You are
free to share, copy, or distribute this document in full within the limitations of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License and the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. To view copies of these licenses, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/.
 Polkinghorne Quotes

Table of Contents

I. Polkinghorne Quotes: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 

II. God the Fellow-Sufferer ...................................................................................................................................... 3 
III. The Dangers of a Designer God ......................................................................................................................... 3 
IV. Why is the Tea Kettle Boiling? .......................................................................................................................... 4 
V. The Christian God: Not Limited to nor Restricted by Edges ............................................................................... 4 
VI. Does the Math for Evolutionary Time even Work? ........................................................................................... 5 
VII. The Mutually Enriching Relationship between Faith and Science.................................................................... 6 
VIII. Rejecting Process Theology ............................................................................................................................. 6 
IX. Persistence and Humility: Necessary Qualities for both Science and Theology ................................................ 7 
X. Timid Theologians ............................................................................................................................................... 8 
XI. The Creator as Author, Producer, Director, and Actor in the Cosmic Drama .................................................... 8 
XII. Orthodoxy: Neither Inflexible nor Disconnected from the Past ........................................................................ 9 
XIII. A Dangerous and Satisfying Truth ................................................................................................................ 10 
XIV. Divine Action, Evil, and Slandering God ...................................................................................................... 10 

2
 Polkinghorne Quotes

followers of Christ. And it is more than just an

I. Polkinghorne Quotes: intellectual problem since it has led many to abandon
the faith, and their trust in God. I certainly do not have
Introduction great answers. However, when we finally do get a
Published November 13, 2007 satisfactory answer, I believe that answer will include
Polkinghorne’s point that God is a fellow-sufferer.
John Polkinghorne is one of my favourite authors. His
writing is intellectually challenging, spiritually Faith is not so much about belief but trust, trust in the
stimulating, constantly engrossing, and surprisingly living God who is the foundation of our being.
humble for someone so obviously brilliant. He is Questions and doubt are an integral part of faith, not its
completely unafraid of tackling the most difficult opposite. As human parents, we encourage our
issues or stating his conclusions even if they risk children to ask questions. A child that asks no
alienting his target constituency. I find that most of his questions is disintrested or worse.
works must be reread two or three times to be fully
appreciated, but I consider this a bonus as I learn So when faced with the problem of evil, in which type
something new each time; it is like getting 2 or 3 books of God do you wish to place your trust: A “Designer
for the price of one. God” who designed all things in their intricate detail,
including things that bring pain, suffering, death, and
Along with Arthur Peacocke and Ian Barbour, destruction? A “Philosopher God” who answers all
Polkinghorne is acknowledged as one of the giants in your questions including why there is so much pain,
the science-faith dialogue. He also approaches this suffering, death, and destruction? Or a suffering God, a
dialogue from an evangelical perspective. Given the crucified, resurrected God who has experienced pain,
relative dearth of insightful evangelical thought on the suffering, and death, and in so doing has destroyed the
interface between science and faith, we should be very power of death? For me, the answer to that
thankful that one of the few evangelical voices is so question is easy.
incredibly good. Polkinghorne has earned accolades in
both of his careers, his first as a physicist and his
second as an Anglican priest and theologian. III. The Dangers of a Designer
God
Given his impact on my own thought, I will from time-
to-time be posting selected quotes from Polkinghorne Published November 20, 2007
on the science / faith dialogue. For some I will add a
short comment of my own. For others I’ll simply let Speaking of those who claim to have scientifically
the quote speak for itself. detected intelligence behind the evolution of the
universe, Polkinghorne states:
II. God the Fellow-Sufferer
“Yet it is possible that they are being offered a
Published November 14, 2007 gift by the Greeks, as much to be feared as to be
welcomed. For the God so discerned seems but
“God is not a spectator, but a fellow-sufferer, an austere and impersonal deity; the ground of a
who has himself absorbed the full force of evil. In cosmic process which rolls on without obvious
the lonely figure hanging in the darkness and concern for the fate of individuals. He commands
dereliction of Calvary the Christian believes that our intellectual respect but not our love; we can
he sees God opening his arms to embrace the wonder at his works but we are not moved to trust
bitterness of the strange world he has made. The him in our personal lives."
God revealed in the vulnerability of the
incarnation and in the vulnerability of creation "The offering of a revived natural theology would
are one. He is the crucified God, whose have proved to be a Trojan horse for Christianity
paradoxical power is perfected in weakness, if it replaced the God and Father of our Lord
whose self-chosen symbol is the King reigning Jesus Christ by the Great Mathematician”
from the gallows”
From “Science and Providence”, page 4
From Science and Providence, page 68
As I mentioned in my last post, I believe that the ID
Theodicy and the "Problem of Evil" are, I believe, the movement is potentially dangerous to Christian
most difficult intellectual problems we face as theology because of its focus on natural theology.

3
 Polkinghorne Quotes

Polkinghorne’s Trojan horse metaphor is particularly The teakettle analogy is perhaps Polkinghorne’s most
apt. Those who use the gift of modern science as a frequently repeated quote. Actually, since it seems to
sword to defend the faith may find that sword to be change with each repetition, it should probably be
lethally double-edged. classified as something other than a quote. I’ve seen
the analogy appear in many different forms, in articles
But Polkinghorne’s warning needs to be heeded by and lectures by Polkinghorne himself, and in books,
Evolutionary Creationists (ECs) and Theistic articles, lectures, emails, and blog entries by others
Evolutionists (TEs) as well. Those of us that (this one here substituting coffee for tea – something
acknowledge no gaps in natural processes are often Polkinghorne as a good Brit probably considers
fond of pointing to the Big Bang, the fine-tuned heretical).
universe, and the anthropic principle as evidence of
God’s providence and design. This may indeed be so. I believe that one's view of divine action is the most
But the initial act of speaking the universe into being is significant factor in demarcating Christians that accept
not the totality of God’s creative act; creation is not evolution from those that do not. It is certainly more
just about origins. In Denis Alexander’s words, we important than how one thinks of scripture as many
must be “robust theists” who acknowledge God’s anti-evolution Christians (probably most supporters of
ongoing and continuous creation. ID for example) do NOT interpret scripture literally.
For those Christians whose model of divine action is
ID proponents often accuse ECs of being little more restricted to God intervening in nature in a way that is
than Deists ie. acknowledging a God who started the unexplainable by natural causes, evolution will be
process and but who is uninvolved thereafter. This is a forever troublesome. Evolutionary theory does not
potentially valid criticism of the EC position if we allow for gaps in the natural record, and the scientific
leave no room for divine action after the initial evidence for this theory continues to bear fruit.
parameter calibration for the infant universe. But that is However, for Christians who see God acting in and
not my position, nor is it the position of most ECs. We through nature, who see nature as simply a secondary
worship a God that is intimately involved in his cause and not as a final cause, who believe that a
ongoing creation. He is the God of the bible, the God scientific description of an event or process does not
who led the Israelites out of Egypt, the God who raised diminish God’s active control of that event or process,
Jesus from the dead. evolution can be fully compatible with faith in a God
who acts in this world.
IV. Why is the Tea Kettle Boiling?
V. The Christian God: Not Limited
Published November 28, 2007
to nor Restricted by Edges
Why is the kettle boiling? Answer#1: The kettle is
Published December 6, 2007
boiling because the burning gas heats the water.
True. Answer#2: The kettle is boiling because I
Theology is concerned with ontological origin
want to make a cup of tea and would you like to
and not with temporal beginning. The idea of
have a cup with me? True.
creation has no special stake in a datable start to
the universe. If Hawking is right, and quantum
There is no conflict between those two answers;
effects mean that the cosmos as we know it is like
they are in fact complementary. In an exactly
a kind of fuzzy space-time egg, without a singular
similar way I don't have to choose between
point at which it all began, that is scientifically
science and religion. "The universe sprang into
very interesting, but theologically insignificant.
being about fifteen billion years ago through the
When he poses the question, “But if the universe
fiery explosion of the big bang." That is true, but
is really completely self-contained, having no
it does not preclude my also saying, "The
boundary, or edge, it would have neither
universe came into being and remains in being
beginning nor end: it would simply be. What
because of the Word of a Creator whose mind
place, then, for a creator?”, it would be
and purpose are behind all of the scientific truths
theologically naïve to give any answer other
that we perceive."
than: “Every place – as sustainer of the self-
From Is Science Enough?, September, 1994 contained space-time egg and as the ordainer of
Lecture at The University of the South its quantum laws”. God is not a God of the edges,
with a vested interest in boundaries.

4
 Polkinghorne Quotes

Creation is not something he did fifteen billion

years ago, but it is something that he is doing VI. Does the Math for
now. Evolutionary Time even Work?
From Science and Christian Belief, page 73
Many Christians, I think, put too much stock in the Published December 20, 2007
implications of scientific discoveries. Thus for
example, since biological evolution seems to threaten The fact that evolutionary mechanisms can physically
traditional ideas of a historical instantaneous Fall, account for the complexity of life on earth seems, well
many Christians dismiss biological evolution out of frankly, mind boggling if not preposterous. And there
hand. Rarely is it asked: “Does evolution really change doesn’t seem to be any mathematical model that can
our ideas of a historical instantaneous Fall?” (some explain how random mutations and natural selection
evolutionary creationists say no), or “Is a re- results in, for starters, us. Here is how Polkinghorne
examination of a historical instantaneous Fall helpful put it:
for our theology” (possibly yes), or even “Do I really
need to definitively resolve this particular tension right "Three or four billion years may seem like a
now?” (maybe the best question of all). pretty long time for the coming to be of life and
the formation of its evolved complexity, but
As Christians I think we can make a similar mistake incredibly intricate developments have to be fitted
with scientific discoveries that seem to cohere nicely into that period. Someone like Richard Dawkins
with orthodox Christian theology. The Big Bang, a can present persuasive pictures of how the sifting
theory proposed by a Catholic priest, is the classic and accumulation of small differences can
example. Christians have stated that it is “proof that produce large-scale developments, but,
God created the universe”. Now, I have absolutely no instinctively, a physical scientist would like to see
reason to doubt the Big Bang theory (Simon Singh’s an estimate, however rough, of how many small
book on the topic is one of my favourite works of steps take us from a slightly light-sensitive cell to
popular science). As well, I must confess to some a fully formed insect eye, and of approximately
satisfaction in knowing that the theory continues to the number of generations required for the
incite strong opposition from some atheistic necessary mutations to occur. One is only looking
materialists, and that it meshes neatly with the for an order of magnitude answer, comparable in
Christian concepts of creation ex nihilo and a non- crudity to the back-of-the-envelope calculations
eternal universe. However, my Christian faith does not of early cosmologists, but our biological friends
rest on the theory of the Big Bang and I disagree with tell us, without any apparent anxiety, that it just
the statement that the theory “proves that Christianity can't be done. So much of evolutionary argument
is true". If the scientific consensus of the ultimate fate seems to be that 'it's happened and so it must
of the universe suddenly changed from "a universe have happened this way".
accelerating towards The Big Freeze" to "a universe From Science and Christian Belief, page 16
entering a cycle of Big Crunches & Big Bangs (of
which our instantiation may not be the first)", I do not
see how that is relevant to my faith. So, is Polkinghorne just another mathematician type
that doubts evolution? Should he just go take a biology
God is neither restricted by nor limited to the edges. class? Not so fast. Check out how Polkinghorne states
We should neither search for him there, nor fear that the same idea with one important clarification.
they constrain him.
"One of the serious questions that many physical
scientists wish to ask about a purely Darwinian
account of the evolution of life is whether there
has been adequate time available to
accommodate the amazing variety and complexity
of change involved. Three to four billion years
may seem a long period, but astonishing things
have to have happened, not least in the rapid
development of the hominid brain in the space of
only a few million years. Is the patient
accumulation and sifting of small genetic

5
 Polkinghorne Quotes

differences sufficient to accomplish this? Those inherent conflict between faith and science. The most
who ask the question are not querying the idea salient conflict may be whether or not conflict is
that natural selection has a role to play, but they necessary. When détente is reached and dialogue
simply ask whether it is by itself totally adequate occurs, that dialogue between faith and science “can
as an explanation. The questioners are not only be mutually enriching”.
looking for a gap into which to insert the finger
of divine intervention, but they may just be The converse is also true: avoidance of dialogue can
seeking a more comprehensive and persuasive hamper both faith and science. As Einstein put it:
scientific account. People like Paul Davies (The “Religion without science is blind. Science without
Cosmic Blueprint) are very impressed with the religion is lame”. I disagree with the limitations
remarkable drive to complexity present in cosmic Einstein imposes, particularly the claim that Religion is
history. Dennett occasionally refers to this time- “blind” without science, but I do agree with the claim
scale problem, but it seems that neither he nor that faith and science can benefit each other. My own
any other evolutionary reductionist is able to take on the relationship (both positive and negative) is
offer a convincing answer to it." as follows:
From Polkinghorne's 1995 review of Dennett's 1. Through faith we can experience an intimate
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea" relationship with the Creator, but science
allows us to appreciate more fully the majesty
of the Creator and the grandeur of creation.
So come on biologists, show us the equations!! You do
get marks for the right answer, but unfortunately, to 2. Through science we can acquire an intimate
pass this exam you need to write your solution out in knowledge of the character of creation, but
full. without knowledge of the Creator it is an
incomplete knowledge, a knowledge that is
limited and ultimately unsatisfying.
VII. The Mutually Enriching
Relationship between Faith and VIII. Rejecting Process Theology
Science Published January 31, 2008
Published January 16, 2008
Polkinghorne is often accused of accepting and
The remarkable insights that science affords us promoting Process Theology (PT). This theology,
into the intelligible workings of the world cry out initially developed by Alfred Whitehead in the early
for an explanation more profound than that 20th century, proposes that God is neither omnipotent
which it itself can provide. Religion, if it is to take nor directly active in his creation. To most
seriously its claim that the world is the creation Evangelicals, PT is heretical as its view of God can not
of God, must be humble enough to learn from be reconciled with the God revealed in scripture. I
science what that world is actually like. The agree that PT is unacceptable but I strongly disagree
dialogue between them can only be mutually that Polkinghorne subscribes to PT. Anyone who
enriching. The scientist will find in theology a believes otherwise has badly misunderstood what he is
unifying principle more fundamental than the saying.
grandest unified field theory. The theologian will
encounter in science’s account of the pattern and God’s Omnipotence
structure of the physical world a reality which
calls forth admiration and wonder. Together they PT rejects the possibility of an omnipotent God. To
can say with the Psalmist: “O Lord, how fulfill his divine purpose, God’s power is limited to
manifold are thy works! In wisdom thou hast persuasion. The PT divinity is a cajoling, pleading
made them all. supplicant desperately trying to save his creation from
itself. Thus the problem of theodicy is resolved but
From Science and Creation, page 117 only by rejecting the God of the resurrection, the God
who can, and will, “make all things new”. But this
It may appear that evolutionary creationists are impotent God is not the God that Polkinghorne
constantly defensive, defending our faith on the one describes. Here is what he says in Science and
hand, and our science on the other. But that is only Christian Belief, page 81
because we live in a world that assumes there is an

6
 Polkinghorne Quotes

God remains omnipotent in the sense that he can

do whatever he wills, but it is not in accordance IX. Persistence and Humility:
with his will and nature to insist on total control. Necessary Qualities for both
The view that Polkinghorne describes is clearly not the Science and Theology
PT God; it is in fact the God revealed in Jesus Christ
who: "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of Published March 23, 2008
a servant, being made in human likeness. And being
found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and Even the greatest of scientists admit that they “stand on
became obedient to death— even death on a cross! the shoulders of giants”. No one’s theories are free
(Phil 2: 7, 8) from correction or extension. Good theories (like
Darwin’s theory of biological evolution) are constantly
God’s Action corrected, refined, and extended. Polkinghorne states it
well:
PT insists that either God has no power to intervene in Almost all scientists believe the progress of
creation, or is morally obligated not to intervene. After science to be a convergence onto an increasingly
all, if you intervene once, why not intervene all the verisimilitudinous understanding of the nature of
time to prevent evil? But the God of the Bible is the physical world. We are its mapmakers and
certainly a God of action, something that Polkinghorne sometimes we have radically to revise our views
strongly affirms. (that patch of apparent Newtonian terra firma
turns out to be a quantum swamp). Yet overall,
Christian theology cannot do without a God who accuracy improves with each major discovery.
acts in the world by more than simply keeping it Scientific progress is not made either by denying
in being, for it looks to the One who brought the existence of phenomena that we currently
Israel out of Egypt and raised Jesus from the cannot understand or by exaggerating the scope
dead. Science and Providence, page 43 of what we have currently achieved. Persistence
and openness in investigation, and a degree of
Given the insights of modern science, we must indeed realistically humble assessment of present
rethink and rearticulate our view of divine action; the attainment, are indispensable virtues in the
old view of a constantly intervening divinity is pursuit of science.
inadequate.At best, it reduces God to a slightly inept
divine tinkerer, at worst it implies he is some sort of Faith , Science, and Understanding (page 119)
cosmic tyrant. But it is not necessary to swing so far
towards PT. As Polkinghorne states in Science and It is this combination of inquisitive openness,
Christian Belief, page 80 persistence, and realistic humility that has made
modern science so successful.
One is trying to steer a path between the
unrelaxing grip of a Cosmic Tyrant and the I think there is a lesson here for Evangelicals and our
impotence or indifference of a Deistic Spectator.I theology. Polkinghorne continues:
believe process theology to be impaled on the This edifying conclusion is of wider application
impotent branch of the horn of the dilemma. than just within science alone. It certainly bears
extension to theology and to the interaction
between theology and science. If we do not
The dilemma is real - articulating a model for divine display a certain degree of intellectual daring, no
action is indeed difficult. However, I believe progress will be made. If we do not display a
Polkinghorne’s ideas are some of the most helpful ones certain degree of intellectual humility, misleading
we have. For Evangelicals to accuse him of being a and untenable claims will be made. If we are not
Process Theologian because of God’s self imposed content to live with the acknowledgement that
limits on divine action is grossly unfair and there are phenomena that are beyond our
unreasonable, just as unfair and unreasonable as contemporary powers of explanation, we shall
accusing him of being a hyper-Fundamentalist because have a truncated and inadequate grasp of reality.
of his insistence that God can act, has acted, does act,
and will continue to act in order to fulfill his divine I am not saying that we should replace our theology.
purpose. Far from it. We too stand on the shoulders of Giants, in
our case the Old Testament prophets, the apostles, the
church fathers, and the reformers. Jumping off these
shoulders would be catastrophic. But we should not

7
 Polkinghorne Quotes

confuse our theology with God’s Truth. Theology is and confuse us today. It is not sufficient to understand
simply our current, limited understanding of God, his historic approaches to theology that may have been
creation, and the relationship between them. When appropriate for the church fathers and the reformers.
required, we should not be afraid to rearticulate this For the good of our faith we also need approaches that
understanding. Nor should we be afraid to admit that make sense of our modern and post-modern world.
some things are beyond our understanding.
Polkinghorne later continues:
Scientists ultimately “trust” the rationality of God’s Theology without natural theology would be in a
creation (as Einstein notes: “God does not play dice”), ghetto, cut off from knowledge of the physical
not the theories that approximate the truth about creation; natural theology by itself would be
creation. As Christians the foundation of our trust must vulnerable, apt to seem little more than a
rest on our resurrected Lord, not the theologies we competing possibility alongside a thoroughgoing
articulate about that Lord. naturalism. Once again one sees how essential it
is that theological inquiry is conducted as a fully
Happy Easter. integrated discipline.
Over the past half-century Evangelicals have
(thankfully) realized that the fundamentalist cultural
X. Timid Theologians ghetto serves only to silence the gospel, and we have
Published March 30, 2008 begun to (slowly) break down those walls. What I’m
not so sure we understand is that our theological
I have previously commented on the dearth of ghettos are just as dangerous. If we cannot speak to the
evangelical theologians willing to tackle the issues of the day, how can we expect others to be
implications of biological evolution. While evangelical interested in the gospel? If we aren’t answering the
scientists, and in particular evangelical biologists, are questions that are being asked, why are we surprised
grappling with the theological implications for their when people (including our youth) look elsewhere for
Christian faith, evangelical theologians for the most answers?
part have remained silent. Some, no doubt, fear
retribution from the constituents and institutions they Evangelical theologians: This is not so much a
serve; others may simply fear exploring new ideas. complaint as a request for help.

Here is what Polkinghorne has to say on the latter:

As a scientist I am often struck by theologians’ XI. The Creator as Author,
persistent fear of getting it wrong. [In science] a Producer, Director, and Actor in
willingness to explore ideas which might prove
mistaken, or in need of revision, is a necessary the Cosmic Drama
price of scientific progress. One would have Published August 31, 2008
thought that the intrinsic difficulty in doing
theology would encourage a similar intrepidity. Explaining divine action in an evolutionary creation
At times (the patristic period, the Reformation) model (or any model for that matter) is notoriously
that has been so, but not always. I am not of difficult. Many analogies and explanations have been
course, denying the existence of many wild flights attempted; none are entirely successful. All of them are
of contemporary theological fancy, but saying limited since there is no parallel to the transcendent
that within the sober core I detect a degree of God and thus no parallel to divine action. If pushed too
disinclination to take intellectual risk, far, many analogies lead to a view of God that is either
particularly where it involves interaction with deistic, panentheistic, or pantheistic. Some
another discipline. Hence the widespread neglect explanations portray God as little more than a powerful
of natural science by theologians. demiurge, an almost natural deity that is more similar
to Zeus than Yahweh. That being said, I think
From Science and Christian Belief, page 44 Polkinghorne’s comparison of divine action to roles in
In some ways, Polkinghorne’s admonishment is too a theatrical production is helpful:
gentle. If theology is “faith seeking understanding”,
then it is imperative that theologians deal with current [The Christian] Creator is as far as possible from
issues, issues that may have been irrelevant to any idea of a demiurge. The latter is a cause
Christians in the past, but issues that puzzle, bewilder, among causes, an agent among the many

8
 Polkinghorne Quotes

agencies at work in the world, even if he

possesses power and intelligence greatly superior The reason for this, as Polkinghorne astutely
to the other actors on the cosmic stage. The comments, is that the creeds themselves are,
Creator God, on the other hand, is the author and “condensed in character” and do not “[prescribe] all
producer of the whole play. the details” of how Christian theological discourse
must be conducted. “Orthodoxy is not inflexibility”.
From Science and Creation, page 68
[Evangelical theologians: Please take a deep breath and
This is good as far as it goes (and really Polkinghorne repeat this short, beautiful phrase ten times].
should have assigned the role of director to the Creator
as well). It implies (correctly) that the Creator has This allows for a “developmental approach” to the
planned the universe’s entire historical narrative for a dialogue between science and theology. Polkinghorne
purpose, and that every creature (from atoms to states that he seeks a:
Adams) receives its part from him. The Creator
provides guidance to the actors, but does not “… basis for Christian belief that is certainly
micromanage every action, posture, breath, and facial revised in the light of our twentieth-century insights
expression. Within the play, creatures are given but which is recognizably constrained within the
genuine freedom to act within the limitations of the envelope of understanding in continuity with the
parts they are given. developing doctrine of the Church throughout the
centuries.”
However, to complete the analogy, one must also
acknowledge that God is more than just the author, From Science and the Trinity, page 28
producer, and director, but is also an actor. He is the
God who revealed himself to the patriarchs, spoke to It is this developmental approach that can lead to
the ancient Hebrews through the prophets, launched fruitful insights in our thinking about the Creator and
the Church at Pentecost, and leads us today by his Holy his creation. But many theologians, it seems, want to
Spirit. abandon the wisdom of the past. This can lead to
conclusions that fall well outside the boundaries of
And then there is Jesus Christ, the character scripted to orthodoxy. Polkinghorne recognizes this danger and
endure ultimate unfairness, ultimate suffering, ultimate warns that theologians, like scientists, must stand on
death, ultimate judgment, and damnation. For this the shoulders of giants.
central character, God chose to play the part himself.
The essential issue is whether substantial new
XII. Orthodoxy: Neither Inflexible thinking in theology can satisfactorily be achieved
largely in disconnection with past understanding.
nor Disconnected from the Past There is always the danger that the gusting of
Published October 10, 2009 Zeitgeist might wrongly be mistaken for the Wind of
the Holy Spirit.
Orthodox theology is one of the hallmarks of
Evangelicalism; the basic beliefs of the Christian faith From Science and the Trinity, page 26
as articulated by the inspired New Testament writers,
the Apostles and the Church Fathers, and as This warning should be taken very seriously. New
documented in the early church creeds, are non- scientific insights present not only new theological
negotiable. We are followers of Christ that value “right opportunities, but also new theological challenges. We
belief”. must wrestle with the difficulties, and not sweep them
under the table. We trace our faith lineage a long way,
But that doesn’t mean we are locked into an ancient from the patriarchs, through the prophets, the apostles,
mindset, one that is no longer tenable in the age of the Church fathers, and the reformers. They wrestled
modern science. As Polkinghorne states: with the faith issues of their day, and we can learn
from their wrestling as we wrestle with our own. And
The Nicene Creed provides us with the outline of a when we are wrestling, we must pray for guidance
rationally defensible theology which can be from the Holy Spirit, the source of true wisdom.
embraced with integrity as much today as when it
was first formulated in the fourth century.

From Science and the Trinity, page 29

9
 Polkinghorne Quotes

XIII. A Dangerous and Satisfying XIV. Divine Action, Evil, and

Truth Slandering God
Published December 24th, 2009 Published January 31st 2010

The “Two Books” is a common metaphor in the Last Sunday morning Dave Toycen, president of
science / faith discussion. We study both scripture World Vision Canada, was interviewed by our pastor.
(God’s Word) and the book of nature (God’s works). Dave had just returned from Haiti and was providing
Since God is the author of both books, both can lead us us with some first hand accounts of the devastation
to truth. Sometimes the truths we encounter are so caused by the earthquake that had rocked Haiti a
counterintuitive that many exclaim “That’s couple of weeks earlier. The stories were heartrending.
impossible!” (eg. scientific truths like quantum
mechanics or common descent; biblical truths like the The first song we sang that morning was Indescribable.
resurrection). But even though these truths seem to Now, this isn’t my favourite worship song and I
contradict common sense (are virtually nonsense), on usually simply stop singing when the second verse
close examination, their veracity is demonstrated by starts with “Who has told every lightning bolt where it
the evidence. should go …”. I’m always surprised that more people
don’t find this line a little uncomfortable (Anyone here
Although all truth is God’s truth, not all truth is equally been hit by lightening? Anyone have someone they
significant. As Polkinghorne notes, both of God’s love killed by lightening?), but given current events, I
books contain truth, but they differ greatly in the was sure others must also see the problem.
potential to impact our lives:
Apparently not. The song continued without even a
There is one important difference, however, hint of irony. Ok, how about we change that line to
between scientific belief and religious belief. The “Who has told every tectonic plate when is should
latter is much more demanding and more slide …”. Does that help illustrate the problem? Maybe
dangerous. I believe passionately in quantum we need to be a little blunter: “Did God kill all those
theory, but that belief doesn’t threaten to change people in Port-au-Prince?”
my life in any significant way. I cannot believe in
God, however, without knowing that I must be Divine Action and Evil
obedient to his will for me as it becomes known to Polkinghorne is acutely aware of the problem of
me. God is not there just to satisfy my intellectual Divine action and evil. As he indicates:
curiosity; he is there to be honoured and respected
and loved as my Creator and Saviour. Beware! Let The more strongly one is able to speak of God’s
me utter a theological health warning or, rather, particular action in the world, the more firmly one
promise: “Reading the Bible can change your life” asserts that world to be subject to his purposive
Searching for Truth, page 16 will, so much the more forceful becomes the
problem of the widespread evil within it. (Science
The truth in scripture can change our lives because it and Providence, page 59)
introduces us to the Author of creation, the purpose of
creation, and the purpose for our lives. The book of As orthodox Christians (and in opposition to those who
nature, no matter how awe inspiring and wondrous, can hold to process theology), we believe that God acts: he
never do that. We should never confuse the book for upholds his creation, he is continually creating, and he
the author (a mistake that has been made repeatedly has acted in very particular ways in history (most
since the dawn of human consciousness). notably the incarnation). But must we speak of
particular “natural” disasters as “acts of God”? Was it
As we prepare to celebrate the time when the Author “God’s will” that all those Haitians died? If God is
inserted himself into the book of nature (in an good, why is there “natural” evil?
altogether unexpected fashion!), let us give thanks for
both his books. And we should also remember that no Free-Process Theodicy
matter how satisfying it is to gain knowledge from I doubt that the “Problem of Evil” will ever fully make
these two books, knowing the Author and being known sense to us, at least this side of paradise. However, I do
by him (1 Cor 13:12) is even better. think that Polkinghorne’s free-process defence is the
closest we may get. As he says:

10
 Polkinghorne Quotes

I think the only possible solution lies in a variation Actually, that is NOT God’s Will
of the free-will defence, applied to the whole When evil occurs, Christians often say “It must be
created world. One might call it ‘the free-process God’s will”. But I am not sure this is necessarily true.
defence’. In his great act of creation I believe that In fact, I am sure that many of the choices that God’s
God allows the physical world to be itself, not in creatures make are not the choices God would make.
Manichaean opposition to him, but in that As Polkinghorne notes:
independence which is Love’s gift of freedom to the
one beloved. God no more expressly wills the growth of a cancer
… than he expressly wills the act of a murderer, but he
The Cosmos is given the opportunity to be itself. allows both to happen. He is not puppetmaster of
(Science and Providence, page 66) either men or matter. (Science and Providence,
page 68)
Just as God gives humanity the freedom to be itself and
to make choices (even when those choices are not the So in the face of tragedy, maybe we shouldn’t be so
one’s God wishes his children would make), so too quick to opine “It must be God’s will”. And just as we
God gives the whole of his creation the freedom to be shouldn’t accuse God of causing the genocide in
itself. And the evil in this world (both moral and Rawanda, neither should we accuse him of causing the
natural), is the price of this freedom. I suspect the same earthquake in Haiti.
reasoning that applies to the free-will defence (See
Plantinga's “God, Freedom, and Evil” ) applies for the And while we are at it, maybe we should make sure
most part to the free-process defence. our worship songs do not slander God.

11