Hello Dr. Rohr,
It seems that you regard the publications of biologists and paleontologists as “science of the flesh” that must be discarded if they run counter to the Scripture.
I suggest an alternative approach that has stood the test of time in the Church: The Doctrine of the Two Books.
This doctrine has its Scriptural foundation in Psalm 19. The first stanza describes the first of the two books, the Book of Nature:
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world. (vv 1 - 4, ESV)
The second stanza describes the second book, the Book of Scripture:
The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple (v 7, ESV)
Tertullian was the first church father to describe this doctrine:
“We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.” [Adversus Marcionem, I, 18]
It is quite significant that Galileo quoted this very passage when he contended that the doctrine of geocentrism, so plainly taught by literal reading of Scripture, must be reconsidered when confronted with strong scientific evidence.
Tertullian was not alone in teaching the doctrine of the Two Books. Other proponents included:
- Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (source)
- Clement, Origen (source)
- Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, John Cassian, John Chrysostom, Ephrem the Syrian, Maximus the Confessor (source)
- John Scottus Eriugena, Hugh of Saint Victor, Saint Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas (source)
- Francis Bacon (source)
- Martin Luther, John Calvin (source)
This is a veritable Hall of Fame in Christian thought!
The doctrine of the Two Books took on great importance in the Reformation because scientific discoveries created upheaval in what had been previously thought established by Scripture. Rusbult explains:
We should agree that in holy scripture the main purpose is to help us understand spiritual realities, but is this the only purpose? Do any passages in the Bible contain scientific information that should be used in our scientific theories? Or should we use information from nature to help us interpret the passages? When thinking about these questions, one useful principle is illustrated by changes in our theories about the solar system:
In 1500, we had a coherent system of false beliefs. Everyone thought that planetary motions were earth-centered, and that the Bible taught this science. Our interpretations of nature and scripture were both wrong, but they agreed with each other and were thus in harmony.
In 1620, there were debates among scientists, who didn’t agree with each other about how to interpret nature. And there were debates about how to interpret scripture; some theologians, but not others, agreed with Galileo’s interpretation of biblical passages that seem to indicate a moving sun and stable earth, when he said “the intention of the Holy Spirit is to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” At this time, some interpretations of nature conflicted with some interpretations of scripture. { In addition, scientists and theologians were influenced by other factors, including personal interests and Aristotelian philosophy. }
In 1700, science and theology were again in harmony, with both agreeing that planetary motions are sun-centered. But unlike 200 years earlier, now both interpretations corresponded to the reality in nature and scripture, and were therefore true.
What was the change in theology? In 1500, people claimed that the Bible teaches an earth-centered universe when it says “the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises,” when it describes a mobile sun that “rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other” and a stationary earth: “the world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 19:6, Psalm 93:1) In 1700, almost everyone agreed that the Bible authors were simply describing what seems to be happening when we observe the sun, just as we now talk about a sunrise or sunset.
What caused this change? Our interpretation of the Bible was influenced by information from nature, interpreted using science. This influence was beneficial, since it helped us recognize that in these passages the Bible was not making a scientific statement teaching us “how the heavens go.”
I respectfully disagree, @Anyman, that we are dealing with a conflict between science and Scripture here. I find myself agreeing with Rusbult that the issue we face is a conflict is between differing interpretations of Scripture.
What we learn from the Book of Nature can help us interpret the Book of Scripture more faithfully. In the same way that scientific observations helped early Reformers like Kepler and Galileo to more faithfully interpret Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 19:6, and Psalm 93:1, the observations of paleontology and biology can help us more faithfully interpret the early chapters of Genesis today.
@SonsofThunder - I hope that you, along with Dr. Rohr, find this doctrine of the Two Books to be helpful!
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
Edits: Some formatting; link to Rusbult essay