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
I. Polkinghorne Quotes:
Introduction
Published November 13, 2007
John Polkinghorne is one of my favourite authors. His
writing is intellectually challenging, spiritually
stimulating, constantly engrossing, and surprisingly
humble for someone so obviously brilliant. He is
completely unafraid of tackling the most difficult
issues or stating his conclusions even if they risk
alienting his target constituency. I find that most of his
works must be reread two or three times to be fully
appreciated, but I consider this a bonus as I learn
something new each time; it is like getting 2 or 3 books
for the price of one.
Along with Arthur Peacocke and Ian Barbour,
Polkinghorne is acknowledged as one of the giants in
the science-faith dialogue. He also approaches this
dialogue from an evangelical perspective. Given the
relative dearth of insightful evangelical thought on the
interface between science and faith, we should be
thankful that one of the few evangelical voices is so
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.
Given his impact on my own thought, I will from time-
to-time be posting selected quotes from Polkinghorne
on the science / faith dialogue. For some I will add a
short comment of my own. For others I’ll simply let
the quote speak for itself.
II. God the Fellow-Sufferer
Published November 14, 2007
“God is not a spectator, but a fellow-sufferer,
who has himself absorbed the full force of evil. In
the lonely figure hanging in the darkness and
dereliction of Calvary the Christian believes that
he sees God opening his arms to embrace the
bitterness of the strange world he has made. The
God revealed in the vulnerability of the
incarnation and in the vulnerability of creation
are one. He is the crucified God, whose
paradoxical power is perfected in weakness,
whose self-chosen symbol is the King reigning
from the gallows”
From Science and Providence, page 68
Theodicy and the "Problem of Evil" are, I believe, the
most difficult intellectual problems we face as
3
followers of Christ. And it is more than just an
intellectual problem since it has led many to abandon
the faith, and their trust in God. I certainly do not have
great answers. However, when we finally do get a
satisfactory answer, I believe that answer will include
Polkinghorne’s point that God is a fellow-sufferer.
Faith is not so much about belief but trust, trust in the
living God who is the foundation of our being.
Questions and doubt are an integral part of faith, not its
opposite. As human parents, we encourage our
children to ask questions. A child that asks no
questions is disintrested or worse.
So when faced with the problem of evil, in which type
of God do you wish to place your trust: A “Designer
God” who designed all things in their intricate detail,
including things that bring pain, suffering, death, and
destruction? A “Philosopher God” who answers all
your questions including why there is so much pain,
suffering, death, and destruction? Or a suffering God, a
crucified, resurrected God who has experienced pain,
suffering, and death, and in so doing has destroyed the
very power of death? For me, the answer to that
question is easy.
III. The Dangers of a Designer
God
Published November 20, 2007
Speaking of those who claim to have scientifically
detected intelligence behind the evolution of the
universe, Polkinghorne states:
“Yet it is possible that they are being offered a
gift by the Greeks, as much to be feared as to be
welcomed. For the God so discerned seems but
an austere and impersonal deity; the ground of a
cosmic process which rolls on without obvious
concern for the fate of individuals. He commands
our intellectual respect but not our love; we can
wonder at his works but we are not moved to trust
him in our personal lives."
"The offering of a revived natural theology would
have proved to be a Trojan horse for Christianity
if it replaced the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ by the Great Mathematician”
From “Science and Providence”, page 4
As I mentioned in my last post, I believe that the ID
movement is potentially dangerous to Christian
theology because of its focus on natural theology.
 Polkinghorne Quotes
Polkinghorne’s Trojan horse metaphor is particularly
apt. Those who use the gift of modern science as a
sword to defend the faith may find that sword to be
lethally double-edged.
But Polkinghorne’s warning needs to be heeded by
Evolutionary Creationists (ECs) and Theistic
Evolutionists (TEs) as well. Those of us that
acknowledge no gaps in natural processes are often
fond of pointing to the Big Bang, the fine-tuned
universe, and the anthropic principle as evidence of
God’s providence and design. This may indeed be so.
But the initial act of speaking the universe into being is
not the totality of God’s creative act; creation is not
just about origins. In Denis Alexander’s words, we
must be “robust theists” who acknowledge God’s
ongoing and continuous creation.
ID proponents often accuse ECs of being little more
than Deists ie. acknowledging a God who started the
process and but who is uninvolved thereafter. This is a
potentially valid criticism of the EC position if we
leave no room for divine action after the initial
parameter calibration for the infant universe. But that is
not my position, nor is it the position of most ECs. We
worship a God that is intimately involved in his
ongoing creation. He is the God of the bible, the God
who led the Israelites out of Egypt, the God who raised
Jesus from the dead.
IV. Why is the Tea Kettle Boiling?
Published November 28, 2007
Why is the kettle boiling? Answer#1: The kettle is
boiling because the burning gas heats the water.
True. Answer#2: The kettle is boiling because I
want to make a cup of tea and would you like to
have a cup with me? True.
There is no conflict between those two answers;
they are in fact complementary. In an exactly
similar way I don't have to choose between
science and religion. "The universe sprang into
being about fifteen billion years ago through the
fiery explosion of the big bang." That is true, but
it does not preclude my also saying, "The
universe came into being and remains in being
because of the Word of a Creator whose mind
and purpose are behind all of the scientific truths
that we perceive."
From Is Science Enough?, September, 1994
Lecture at The University of the South
4
The teakettle analogy is perhaps Polkinghorne’s most
frequently repeated quote. Actually, since it seems to
change with each repetition, it should probably be
classified as something other than a quote. I’ve seen
the analogy appear in many different forms, in articles
and lectures by Polkinghorne himself, and in books,
articles, lectures, emails, and blog entries by others
(this one here substituting coffee for tea – something
Polkinghorne as a good Brit probably considers
heretical).
I believe that one's view of divine action is the most
significant factor in demarcating Christians that accept
evolution from those that do not. It is certainly more
important than how one thinks of scripture as many
anti-evolution Christians (probably most supporters of
ID for example) do NOT interpret scripture literally.
For those Christians whose model of divine action is
restricted to God intervening in nature in a way that is
unexplainable by natural causes, evolution will be
forever troublesome. Evolutionary theory does not
allow for gaps in the natural record, and the scientific
evidence for this theory continues to bear fruit.
However, for Christians who see God acting in and
through nature, who see nature as simply a secondary
cause and not as a final cause, who believe that a
scientific description of an event or process does not
diminish God’s active control of that event or process,
evolution can be fully compatible with faith in a God
who acts in this world.
V. The Christian God: Not Limited
to nor Restricted by Edges
Published December 6, 2007
Theology is concerned with ontological origin
and not with temporal beginning. The idea of
creation has no special stake in a datable start to
the universe. If Hawking is right, and quantum
effects mean that the cosmos as we know it is like
a kind of fuzzy space-time egg, without a singular
point at which it all began, that is scientifically
very interesting, but theologically insignificant.
When he poses the question, “But if the universe
is really completely self-contained, having no
boundary, or edge, it would have neither
beginning nor end: it would simply be. What
place, then, for a creator?”, it would be
theologically naïve to give any answer other
than: “Every place – as sustainer of the self-
contained space-time egg and as the ordainer of
its quantum laws”. God is not a God of the edges,
with a vested interest in boundaries.
 Polkinghorne Quotes
Creation is not something he did fifteen billion
years ago, but it is something that he is doing
now.
From Science and Christian Belief, page 73
Many Christians, I think, put too much stock in the
implications of scientific discoveries. Thus for
example, since biological evolution seems to threaten
traditional ideas of a historical instantaneous Fall,
many Christians dismiss biological evolution out of
hand. Rarely is it asked: “Does evolution really change
our ideas of a historical instantaneous Fall?” (some
evolutionary creationists say no), or “Is a re-
examination of a historical instantaneous Fall helpful
for our theology” (possibly yes), or even “Do I really
need to definitively resolve this particular tension right
now?” (maybe the best question of all).
As Christians I think we can make a similar mistake
with scientific discoveries that seem to cohere nicely
with orthodox Christian theology. The Big Bang, a
theory proposed by a Catholic priest, is the classic
example. Christians have stated that it is “proof that
God created the universe”. Now, I have absolutely no
reason to doubt the Big Bang theory (Simon Singh’s
book on the topic is one of my favourite works of
popular science). As well, I must confess to some
satisfaction in knowing that the theory continues to
incite strong opposition from some atheistic
materialists, and that it meshes neatly with the
Christian concepts of creation ex nihilo and a non-
eternal universe. However, my Christian faith does not
rest on the theory of the Big Bang and I disagree with
the statement that the theory “proves that Christianity
is true". If the scientific consensus of the ultimate fate
of the universe suddenly changed from "a universe
accelerating towards The Big Freeze" to "a universe
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.
God is neither restricted by nor limited to the edges.
We should neither search for him there, nor fear that
they constrain him.
5
VI. Does the Math for
Evolutionary Time even Work?
Published December 20, 2007
The fact that evolutionary mechanisms can physically
account for the complexity of life on earth seems, well
frankly, mind boggling if not preposterous. And there
doesn’t seem to be any mathematical model that can
explain how random mutations and natural selection
results in, for starters, us. Here is how Polkinghorne
put it:
"Three or four billion years may seem like a
pretty long time for the coming to be of life and
the formation of its evolved complexity, but
incredibly intricate developments have to be fitted
into that period. Someone like Richard Dawkins
can present persuasive pictures of how the sifting
and accumulation of small differences can
produce large-scale developments, but,
instinctively, a physical scientist would like to see
an estimate, however rough, of how many small
steps take us from a slightly light-sensitive cell to
a fully formed insect eye, and of approximately
the number of generations required for the
necessary mutations to occur. One is only looking
for an order of magnitude answer, comparable in
crudity to the back-of-the-envelope calculations
of early cosmologists, but our biological friends
tell us, without any apparent anxiety, that it just
can't be done. So much of evolutionary argument
seems to be that 'it's happened and so it must
have happened this way".
From Science and Christian Belief, page 16
So, is Polkinghorne just another mathematician type
that doubts evolution? Should he just go take a biology
class? Not so fast. Check out how Polkinghorne states
the same idea with one important clarification.
"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
 Polkinghorne Quotes
differences sufficient to accomplish this? Those
who ask the question are not querying the idea
that natural selection has a role to play, but they
simply ask whether it is by itself totally adequate
as an explanation. The questioners are not
looking for a gap into which to insert the finger
of divine intervention, but they may just be
seeking a more comprehensive and persuasive
scientific account. People like Paul Davies (The
Cosmic Blueprint) are very impressed with the
remarkable drive to complexity present in cosmic
history. Dennett occasionally refers to this time-
scale problem, but it seems that neither he nor
any other evolutionary reductionist is able to
offer a convincing answer to it."
From Polkinghorne's 1995 review of Dennett's
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea"
So come on biologists, show us the equations!! You do
get marks for the right answer, but unfortunately, to
pass this exam you need to write your solution out in
full.
VII. The Mutually Enriching
Relationship between Faith and
Science
Published January 16, 2008
The remarkable insights that science affords us
into the intelligible workings of the world cry out
for an explanation more profound than that
which it itself can provide. Religion, if it is to take
seriously its claim that the world is the creation
of God, must be humble enough to learn from
science what that world is actually like. The
dialogue between them can only be mutually
enriching. The scientist will find in theology a
unifying principle more fundamental than the
grandest unified field theory. The theologian will
encounter in science’s account of the pattern and
structure of the physical world a reality which
calls forth admiration and wonder. Together they
can say with the Psalmist: “O Lord, how
manifold are thy works! In wisdom thou hast
made them all.
From Science and Creation, page 117
It may appear that evolutionary creationists are
constantly defensive, defending our faith on the one
hand, and our science on the other. But that is only
because we live in a world that assumes there is an
6
inherent conflict between faith and science. The most
salient conflict may be whether or not conflict is
necessary. When détente is reached and dialogue
occurs, that dialogue between faith and science “can
only be mutually enriching”.
The converse is also true: avoidance of dialogue can
hamper both faith and science. As Einstein put it:
“Religion without science is blind. Science without
religion is lame”. I disagree with the limitations
Einstein imposes, particularly the claim that Religion is
“blind” without science, but I do agree with the claim
that faith and science can benefit each other. My own
take on the relationship (both positive and negative) is
as follows:
1. Through faith we can experience an intimate
relationship with the Creator, but science
allows us to appreciate more fully the majesty
of the Creator and the grandeur of creation.
2. Through science we can acquire an intimate
knowledge of the character of creation, but
without knowledge of the Creator it is an
incomplete knowledge, a knowledge that is
limited and ultimately unsatisfying.
VIII. Rejecting Process Theology
Published January 31, 2008
Polkinghorne is often accused of accepting and
promoting Process Theology (PT). This theology,
initially developed by Alfred Whitehead in the early
20th century, proposes that God is neither omnipotent
nor directly active in his creation. To most
Evangelicals, PT is heretical as its view of God can not
be reconciled with the God revealed in scripture. I
agree that PT is unacceptable but I strongly disagree
that Polkinghorne subscribes to PT. Anyone who
believes otherwise has badly misunderstood what he is
saying.
God’s Omnipotence
PT rejects the possibility of an omnipotent God. To
fulfill his divine purpose, God’s power is limited to
persuasion. The PT divinity is a cajoling, pleading
supplicant desperately trying to save his creation from
itself. Thus the problem of theodicy is resolved but
only by rejecting the God of the resurrection, the God
who can, and will, “make all things new”. But this
impotent God is not the God that Polkinghorne
describes. Here is what he says in Science and
Christian Belief, page 81
 Polkinghorne Quotes
God remains omnipotent in the sense that he can
do whatever he wills, but it is not in accordance
with his will and nature to insist on total control.
The view that Polkinghorne describes is clearly not the
PT God; it is in fact the God revealed in Jesus Christ
who: "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of
a servant, being made in human likeness. And being
found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and
became obedient to death— even death on a cross!
(Phil 2: 7, 8)
God’s Action
PT insists that either God has no power to intervene in
creation, or is morally obligated not to intervene. After
all, if you intervene once, why not intervene all the
time to prevent evil? But the God of the Bible is
certainly a God of action, something that Polkinghorne
strongly affirms.
Christian theology cannot do without a God who
acts in the world by more than simply keeping it
in being, for it looks to the One who brought
Israel out of Egypt and raised Jesus from the
dead. Science and Providence, page 43
Given the insights of modern science, we must indeed
rethink and rearticulate our view of divine action; the
old view of a constantly intervening divinity is
inadequate.At best, it reduces God to a slightly inept
divine tinkerer, at worst it implies he is some sort of
cosmic tyrant. But it is not necessary to swing so far
towards PT. As Polkinghorne states in Science and
Christian Belief, page 80
One is trying to steer a path between the
unrelaxing grip of a Cosmic Tyrant and the
impotence or indifference of a Deistic Spectator.I
believe process theology to be impaled on the
impotent branch of the horn of the dilemma.
The dilemma is real - articulating a model for divine
action is indeed difficult. However, I believe
Polkinghorne’s ideas are some of the most helpful ones
we have. For Evangelicals to accuse him of being a
Process Theologian because of God’s self imposed
limits on divine action is grossly unfair and
unreasonable, just as unfair and unreasonable as
accusing him of being a hyper-Fundamentalist because
of his insistence that God can act, has acted, does act,
and will continue to act in order to fulfill his divine
purpose.
7
IX. Persistence and Humility:
Necessary Qualities for both
Science and Theology
Published March 23, 2008
Even the greatest of scientists admit that they “stand on
the shoulders of giants”. No one’s theories are free
from correction or extension. Good theories (like
Darwin’s theory of biological evolution) are constantly
corrected, refined, and extended. Polkinghorne states it
well:
Almost all scientists believe the progress of
science to be a convergence onto an increasingly
verisimilitudinous understanding of the nature of
the physical world. We are its mapmakers and
sometimes we have radically to revise our views
(that patch of apparent Newtonian terra firma
turns out to be a quantum swamp). Yet overall,
accuracy improves with each major discovery.
Scientific progress is not made either by denying
the existence of phenomena that we currently
cannot understand or by exaggerating the scope
of what we have currently achieved. Persistence
and openness in investigation, and a degree of
realistically humble assessment of present
attainment, are indispensable virtues in the
pursuit of science.
Faith , Science, and Understanding (page 119)
It is this combination of inquisitive openness,
persistence, and realistic humility that has made
modern science so successful.
I think there is a lesson here for Evangelicals and our
theology. Polkinghorne continues:
This edifying conclusion is of wider application
than just within science alone. It certainly bears
extension to theology and to the interaction
between theology and science. If we do not
display a certain degree of intellectual daring, no
progress will be made. If we do not display a
certain degree of intellectual humility, misleading
and untenable claims will be made. If we are not
content to live with the acknowledgement that
there are phenomena that are beyond our
contemporary powers of explanation, we shall
have a truncated and inadequate grasp of reality.
I am not saying that we should replace our theology.
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
 Polkinghorne Quotes
confuse our theology with God’s Truth. Theology is
simply our current, limited understanding of God, his
creation, and the relationship between them. When
required, we should not be afraid to rearticulate this
understanding. Nor should we be afraid to admit that
some things are beyond our understanding.
Scientists ultimately “trust” the rationality of God’s
creation (as Einstein notes: “God does not play dice”),
not the theories that approximate the truth about
creation. As Christians the foundation of our trust must
rest on our resurrected Lord, not the theologies we
articulate about that Lord.
Happy Easter.
X. Timid Theologians
Published March 30, 2008
I have previously commented on the dearth of
evangelical theologians willing to tackle the
implications of biological evolution. While evangelical
scientists, and in particular evangelical biologists, are
grappling with the theological implications for their
Christian faith, evangelical theologians for the most
part have remained silent. Some, no doubt, fear
retribution from the constituents and institutions they
serve; others may simply fear exploring new ideas.
Here is what Polkinghorne has to say on the latter:
As a scientist I am often struck by theologians’
persistent fear of getting it wrong. [In science] a
willingness to explore ideas which might prove
mistaken, or in need of revision, is a necessary
price of scientific progress. One would have
thought that the intrinsic difficulty in doing
theology would encourage a similar intrepidity.
At times (the patristic period, the Reformation)
that has been so, but not always. I am not of
course, denying the existence of many wild flights
of contemporary theological fancy, but saying
that within the sober core I detect a degree of
disinclination to take intellectual risk,
particularly where it involves interaction with
another discipline. Hence the widespread neglect
of natural science by theologians.
From Science and Christian Belief, page 44
In some ways, Polkinghorne’s admonishment is too
gentle. If theology is “faith seeking understanding”,
then it is imperative that theologians deal with current
issues, issues that may have been irrelevant to
Christians in the past, but issues that puzzle, bewilder,
8
and confuse us today. It is not sufficient to understand
historic approaches to theology that may have been
appropriate for the church fathers and the reformers.
For the good of our faith we also need approaches that
make sense of our modern and post-modern world.
Polkinghorne later continues:
Theology without natural theology would be in a
ghetto, cut off from knowledge of the physical
creation; natural theology by itself would be
vulnerable, apt to seem little more than a
competing possibility alongside a thoroughgoing
naturalism. Once again one sees how essential it
is that theological inquiry is conducted as a fully
integrated discipline.
Over the past half-century Evangelicals have
(thankfully) realized that the fundamentalist cultural
ghetto serves only to silence the gospel, and we have
begun to (slowly) break down those walls. What I’m
not so sure we understand is that our theological
ghettos are just as dangerous. If we cannot speak to the
issues of the day, how can we expect others to be
interested in the gospel? If we aren’t answering the
questions that are being asked, why are we surprised
when people (including our youth) look elsewhere for
answers?
Evangelical theologians: This is not so much a
complaint as a request for help.
XI. The Creator as Author,
Producer, Director, and Actor in
the Cosmic Drama
Published August 31, 2008
Explaining divine action in an evolutionary creation
model (or any model for that matter) is notoriously
difficult. Many analogies and explanations have been
attempted; none are entirely successful. All of them are
limited since there is no parallel to the transcendent
God and thus no parallel to divine action. If pushed too
far, many analogies lead to a view of God that is either
deistic, panentheistic, or pantheistic. Some
explanations portray God as little more than a powerful
demiurge, an almost natural deity that is more similar
to Zeus than Yahweh. That being said, I think
Polkinghorne’s comparison of divine action to roles in
a theatrical production is helpful:
[The Christian] Creator is as far as possible from
any idea of a demiurge. The latter is a cause
among causes, an agent among the many
 Polkinghorne Quotes
agencies at work in the world, even if he
possesses power and intelligence greatly superior
to the other actors on the cosmic stage. The
Creator God, on the other hand, is the author and
producer of the whole play.
From Science and Creation, page 68
This is good as far as it goes (and really Polkinghorne
should have assigned the role of director to the Creator
as well). It implies (correctly) that the Creator has
planned the universe’s entire historical narrative for a
purpose, and that every creature (from atoms to
Adams) receives its part from him. The Creator
provides guidance to the actors, but does not
micromanage every action, posture, breath, and facial
expression. Within the play, creatures are given
genuine freedom to act within the limitations of the
parts they are given.
However, to complete the analogy, one must also
acknowledge that God is more than just the author,
producer, and director, but is also an actor. He is the
God who revealed himself to the patriarchs, spoke to
the ancient Hebrews through the prophets, launched
the Church at Pentecost, and leads us today by his Holy
Spirit.
And then there is Jesus Christ, the character scripted to
endure ultimate unfairness, ultimate suffering, ultimate
death, ultimate judgment, and damnation. For this
central character, God chose to play the part himself.
XII. Orthodoxy: Neither Inflexible
nor Disconnected from the Past
Published October 10, 2009
Orthodox theology is one of the hallmarks of
Evangelicalism; the basic beliefs of the Christian faith
as articulated by the inspired New Testament writers,
the Apostles and the Church Fathers, and as
documented in the early church creeds, are non-
negotiable. We are followers of Christ that value “right
belief”.
But that doesn’t mean we are locked into an ancient
mindset, one that is no longer tenable in the age of
modern science. As Polkinghorne states:
The Nicene Creed provides us with the outline of a
rationally defensible theology which can be
embraced with integrity as much today as when it
was first formulated in the fourth century.
From Science and the Trinity, page 29
9
The reason for this, as Polkinghorne astutely
comments, is that the creeds themselves are,
“condensed in character” and do not “[prescribe] all
the details” of how Christian theological discourse
must be conducted. “Orthodoxy is not inflexibility”.
[Evangelical theologians: Please take a deep breath and
repeat this short, beautiful phrase ten times].
This allows for a “developmental approach” to the
dialogue between science and theology. Polkinghorne
states that he seeks a:
“… basis for Christian belief that is certainly
revised in the light of our twentieth-century insights
but which is recognizably constrained within the
envelope of understanding in continuity with the
developing doctrine of the Church throughout the
centuries.”
From Science and the Trinity, page 28
It is this developmental approach that can lead to
fruitful insights in our thinking about the Creator and
his creation. But many theologians, it seems, want to
abandon the wisdom of the past. This can lead to
conclusions that fall well outside the boundaries of
orthodoxy. Polkinghorne recognizes this danger and
warns that theologians, like scientists, must stand on
the shoulders of giants.
The essential issue is whether substantial new
thinking in theology can satisfactorily be achieved
largely in disconnection with past understanding.
There is always the danger that the gusting of
Zeitgeist might wrongly be mistaken for the Wind of
the Holy Spirit.
From Science and the Trinity, page 26
This warning should be taken very seriously. New
scientific insights present not only new theological
opportunities, but also new theological challenges. We
must wrestle with the difficulties, and not sweep them
under the table. We trace our faith lineage a long way,
from the patriarchs, through the prophets, the apostles,
the Church fathers, and the reformers. They wrestled
with the faith issues of their day, and we can learn
from their wrestling as we wrestle with our own. And
when we are wrestling, we must pray for guidance
from the Holy Spirit, the source of true wisdom.
 Polkinghorne Quotes
XIII. A Dangerous and Satisfying
Truth
Published December 24th, 2009
The “Two Books” is a common metaphor in the
science / faith discussion. We study both scripture
(God’s Word) and the book of nature (God’s works).
Since God is the author of both books, both can lead us
to truth. Sometimes the truths we encounter are so
counterintuitive that many exclaim “That’s
impossible!” (eg. scientific truths like quantum
mechanics or common descent; biblical truths like the
resurrection). But even though these truths seem to
contradict common sense (are virtually nonsense), on
close examination, their veracity is demonstrated by
the evidence.
Although all truth is God’s truth, not all truth is equally
significant. As Polkinghorne notes, both of God’s
books contain truth, but they differ greatly in the
potential to impact our lives:
There is one important difference, however,
between scientific belief and religious belief. The
latter is much more demanding and more
dangerous. I believe passionately in quantum
theory, but that belief doesn’t threaten to change
my life in any significant way. I cannot believe in
God, however, without knowing that I must be
obedient to his will for me as it becomes known to
me. God is not there just to satisfy my intellectual
curiosity; he is there to be honoured and respected
and loved as my Creator and Saviour. Beware! Let
me utter a theological health warning or, rather,
promise: “Reading the Bible can change your life”
Searching for Truth, page 16
The truth in scripture can change our lives because it
introduces us to the Author of creation, the purpose of
creation, and the purpose for our lives. The book of
nature, no matter how awe inspiring and wondrous, can
never do that. We should never confuse the book for
the author (a mistake that has been made repeatedly
since the dawn of human consciousness).
As we prepare to celebrate the time when the Author
inserted himself into the book of nature (in an
altogether unexpected fashion!), let us give thanks for
both his books. And we should also remember that no
matter how satisfying it is to gain knowledge from
these two books, knowing the Author and being known
by him (1 Cor 13:12) is even better.
10
XIV. Divine Action, Evil, and
Slandering God
Published January 31st 2010
Last Sunday morning Dave Toycen, president of
World Vision Canada, was interviewed by our pastor.
Dave had just returned from Haiti and was providing
us with some first hand accounts of the devastation
caused by the earthquake that had rocked Haiti a
couple of weeks earlier. The stories were heartrending.
The first song we sang that morning was Indescribable.
Now, this isn’t my favourite worship song and I
usually simply stop singing when the second verse
starts with “Who has told every lightning bolt where it
should go …”. I’m always surprised that more people
don’t find this line a little uncomfortable (Anyone here
been hit by lightening? Anyone have someone they
love killed by lightening?), but given current events, I
was sure others must also see the problem.
Apparently not. The song continued without even a
hint of irony. Ok, how about we change that line to
“Who has told every tectonic plate when is should
slide …”. Does that help illustrate the problem? Maybe
we need to be a little blunter: “Did God kill all those
people in Port-au-Prince?”
Divine Action and Evil
Polkinghorne is acutely aware of the problem of
Divine action and evil. As he indicates:
The more strongly one is able to speak of God’s
particular action in the world, the more firmly one
asserts that world to be subject to his purposive
will, so much the more forceful becomes the
problem of the widespread evil within it. (Science
and Providence, page 59)
As orthodox Christians (and in opposition to those who
hold to process theology), we believe that God acts: he
upholds his creation, he is continually creating, and he
has acted in very particular ways in history (most
notably the incarnation). But must we speak of
particular “natural” disasters as “acts of God”? Was it
“God’s will” that all those Haitians died? If God is
good, why is there “natural” evil?
Free-Process Theodicy
I doubt that the “Problem of Evil” will ever fully make
sense to us, at least this side of paradise. However, I do
think that Polkinghorne’s free-process defence is the
closest we may get. As he says:
 Polkinghorne Quotes

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

11