Scripture and Science: A Wesleyan Premise
Composite image of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy from NASA. (Source: WikiCommons)
Just over a hundred years ago, theological controversy made front-page news across the US on account of the much-publicized Scopes Monkey Trial. This landmark case—The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (10–21 July 1925)—pitted evolution-minded modernists and Bible-believing fundamentalists against each other. And it turned a bright spotlight on what many assumed were two competing avenues to truth: Scripture and science. This way of putting things continues to be fashionable in some circles, even if, according to the Christian tradition, including our Wesleyan heritage, it is fundamentally flawed.
Already in the twelfth century, theologian Hugh of St. Victor (ca. 1096–1141) had written: “For the whole sensible world is like a kind of book, written by the finger of God—that is, created by divine power—and each particular creature is somewhat like a figure, not invented by human decision, but instituted by the divine will to manifest the invisible things of God’s wisdom” (Didascalion 7.4). Centuries earlier, Augustine (354–430) claimed that “some people read books in order to find God. But the very appearance of God’s creation is a great book.” He advised, “Ponder heaven and earth religiously” (Sermo Mai 126). Christian theologians like these saw scientific inquiry as a means for honoring God and understanding him better. Mirroring the views of many scientists of his day, the English physician and father of neurology, Thomas Willis (1621–1675), referred to his examination of the brain as the study of “another Table of the Divine Word, and the greater Bible: For indeed, in either Volume there is no high point, which requires not the care, or refuses the industry of an Interpreter; there is no Page certainly which shews not the Author, and his Power, Goodness, Trust, and Wisdom” (Thomas Willis, The Anatomy of the Brain and Nerves, ed. William Feindel, 1978 [1681], 51–52). Evidently, not only study of earth and stars, but close examination of human physiology, too, could serve to reveal something of who God is.
As for John Wesley, even passing familiarity with his work reveals his concerns with healthcare (and the degree to which the costs of healthcare put the interventions of medical professionals out of reach for many), as well as his elevated interest in the natural sciences. Concerning the former, we might think immediately of the health clinics he started and, of course, the publication of his book, Primitive Physick: Or, an Easy and Natural Method of Curing Most Diseases. (See now The Works of John Wesley, vol. 32, Medical and Health Writings, ed. James G. Donat and Randy L. Maddox, 2018.) Unsurprisingly, then, Methodism in the US has been marked by the establishment of hospitals, and Methodist medical centers now enjoy a global footprint; additionally, the importance and influence of Wesley’s Primitive Physick continues to be weighed (for example, William O. Goldthorp’s review of John Wesley’s Primitive Physic in British Medical Journal 338 [2009]: 605). Concerning the latter, it is perhaps easiest to point to the publication of Wesley’s multi-volume work, A Compendium of Natural Philosophy—a survey of then-contemporary scientific understanding on topics ranging from the human body to nonhuman creatures (both “brutes” and plants), to astrophysical phenomena and the movement of the “heavenly bodies”—a work that carried an additional, noteworthy title: A Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation. Produced for a popular audience and as a resource for preachers in the early Methodist movement, it appeared in four editions during Wesley's lifetime.
Wesley’s interest in science is documented, too, in “A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists,” where he notes that, “for Six or Seven and Twenty years, I had made Anatomy and Physick the Diversion of my leisure Hours” (§XII.2)—this as a preamble to comments on his initiatives to provide medical attention to the poor in America. Although in matters both theological and scientific Wesley could be myopic, uncritical, and dismissive, it remains the case that he was more than willing to seek partnership, or consonance, between the two. Note, for example, that on account of scientific thought some educated people in the eighteenth century were questioning New Testament reports of Jesus’s miracles of healing and exorcism. Accordingly, in his comment on Jesus’s instruction to the disciples that they should “cast out devils” (Matthew 10:8 Authorized Version), Wesley observed, first, that some claimed that diseases ascribed to the devil in the Gospels “have the very same symptoms with the natural diseases of lunacy, epilepsy, or convulsions,” leading them to conclude “that the devil had no hand in them.” Wesley counters:
But it were well to stop and consider a little. Suppose God should allow an evil spirit to usurp the same power over a man’s body as the man himself has naturally, and suppose him actually to exercise that power; could we conclude the devil had no hand therein, because his body was bent in the very same manner wherein the man himself bent it naturally?”
And suppose God gives an evil spirit a greater power to affect immediately the origin of the nerves in the brain, by irritating them to produce violent motions, or so relaxing them that they can produce little or no motion, still the symptoms will be those of over-tense nerves, as in madness, epilepsies, convulsions, or of relaxed nerves, as in paralytic cases. But could we conclude thence, that the devil had no hand in them? (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament)
As evidenced by his avocation of studying anatomy and physiology, Wesley represented an eighteenth-century, evangelical interest in the new vistas that science had begun to open and a desire to take seriously the importance of science for biblical interpretation and theological engagement. (See the excellent introduction and assessment in Randy L. Maddox, “John Wesley’s Precedent for Theological Engagement with the Natural Sciences,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 44, no. 1 [2009]: 23–54.) In this case, his solution was openness to the witness of both faith and science; rather than deny the truth of stories of demonized persons in the Gospels or their scientific explanation, he allowed that both could be true. He thus set an early example of what we today call the dialogical relationship between science and Christian faith—marked, in his case, by a well-developed curiosity about the natural world, to be sure, but also by a genuine openness to the possible role scientific inquiry might have in biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
It is worth reflecting on Wesley’s apparent desire that Methodists—both Christ-followers tasked with leadership and other, lay participants in the movement—cultivate an interest in learning about God's good creation. Ongoing exposure to scientific discovery was not limited to an elite group of believers but, apparently, was to season all aspects of ordinary life. Scientific discovery might be woven into a sermon or Bible teaching, yes, but was also integral to the catechisms of everyday life as a believer. Undoubtedly, Scripture-shaped patterns of thinking, feeling, and believing shed light on the significance for faithful discipleship of all God's creatures, living and inanimate. This way of making sense of the world would have been important not only for what we today refer to as creation care, but would also nurture a constant awareness that the cosmos was God’s handiwork. Those with eyes of faith would find in the natural world testimony to God’s character and action in the world.
Wesley’s interests are remarkable for the way they exemplify our need today. This is for persons of the church, lay and clergy alike, who refuse to imagine that Scripture and science serve fundamentally different interests and/or that Scripture and science occupy different, non-overlapping worlds. Indeed, as we will see momentarily, Scripture itself presents the natural world as God’s good creation and commends the cosmos as a means to understanding something about God, God’s character, and the shape of faithful response to God.
For our ancestors in the faith, and for us, the revelatory significance of the natural order is declared and grounded in Scripture itself. Paul speaks to a kind of “natural theology” in the opening chapter of Romans: “What is known about God should be plain to [human beings] because God made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—God’s eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made” (Romans 1:19–20 CEB). Paul’s theological claim recalls the elegant words of Psalm 19:
Heaven is declaring God’s glory;
the sky is proclaiming his handiwork.
One day gushes the news to the next,
and one night informs another what needs to be known.
Of course, there’s no speech, no words—their voices can’t be heard—
but their sound extends throughout the world;
their words reach the ends of the earth.
God has made a tent in heaven for the sun.
The sun is like a groom coming out of his honeymoon suite;
like a warrior, it thrills at running its course.
It rises in one end of the sky; its circuit is complete at the other.
Nothing escapes its heat. (Psalm 19:1–6 CEB)
The psalm goes on to speak plainly of God’s instruction (his laws, regulations, commands, and judgments), implying that creation exhibits God and God’s character.
For the psalmist, God’s self-disclosure was available to Israel. This is not because gentiles could not observe the same evidence available to Israel, but because gentile minds had not been well-formed; simply put, they lacked the cognitive categories necessary for making good sense of what they saw. Rather than grasping that the beauty of God’s creation speaks of God himself, gentiles made the beautiful things of the world into gods. Paul makes a similar complaint (see Romans 1:21–23), but only after observing that some knowledge of God is universally available—to gentiles as well as Jews. What is more, from Paul’s words “God made it plain to them,” we see that it was actually God’s aim that human beings would find his fingerprints, so to speak, in their observations of the cosmos. Even if God’s self-disclosure reaches ultimate expression only in God’s Son, Jesus Christ—who “is the light of God’s glory and the imprint of God’s being” (Hebrews 1:3 CEB)—God has nonetheless spoken through all that he has created, so that God’s handwriting is visible through exploration of the created world.
Jesus speaks similarly, of course. Are not the lilies of the field a lesson about God’s gracious care for his people? Are not the wild birds? (Matthew 6:25–34; Luke 12:22–31). Or consider the account in Acts of Paul’s missionary address among the people of Lystra, where he characterizes both rain and fruitful harvests as testimony to God’s goodness (Acts 14:16–17).
In short, for Christians, science must be taken seriously for the simple reason that our theology of creation demands it. The natural world is not the only means by which we have access to God’s self-disclosure, nor does it give us decisive access to God’s character and purpose. For this, we turn to Jesus: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9 CEB). Yet this same God has borne witness to himself through the world he has created. Study of God—theology—thus encompasses exploration of all testimony to God’s character and plan, every means by which God has chosen to reveal himself to humanity. This includes especially God’s two books, the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of science. And if God has borne witness to himself especially in Scripture and in the universe of his own creation, then we who serve him remain always open to the possibility that our understanding of God may be shaped and sharpened through ongoing exploration of these means by which he makes himself known.
Suggested resources:
Wesleyan and biologist Darrell Falk’s (freely available) Substack: “Reflections on faith, science, and harmony/disharmony questions from a lifelong biologist and Christian thinker.” https://substack.com/@darrelfalk
BioLogos “explores God’s Word and God’s World to inspire authentic faith for today. Our vision is faith and science working hand in hand.” https://biologos.org/
The American Scientific Affiliation: “An international community and fellowship of Christians engaged in the interface of vital faith-science questions.” https://network.asa3.org/
Joel B. Green is Senior Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation; he also serves on the editorial board of Firebrand.