McGrath Christian Theology Introduction #8

Summary

Alister McGrath introduces Chapter 7 of Christian Theology: An Introduction, which examines revelation, natural theology, and the relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences.

Revelation: God’s self-disclosure

Revelation means that God makes himself known—as if a veil is removed. In Christian theology, God is not merely an object people discover through reason; God chooses to disclose his will and character.

This self-disclosure is especially associated with Jesus Christ and Scripture. The New Testament describes Christ as “the image of the invisible God.”

McGrath outlines four ways of understanding revelation:

• Revelation as doctrine
• Revelation as presence
• Revelation as experience
• Revelation as history

These are not mutually exclusive theories. They can be understood as different dimensions of a larger account of revelation.

Natural theology: Knowing God through nature

Natural theology considers whether, and to what extent, God can be known through the natural world. The Bible’s depiction of the heavens declaring God’s glory in Psalm 19 is an example of the idea that creation may disclose something about its Creator.

Christian theologians have disagreed about natural theology’s definition and value. Some argue that nature offers evidence for God; others deny that knowledge of God can be gained independently of divine revelation.

The tradition includes the metaphor of God’s two books:

• The book of nature: God’s works
• The book of Scripture: God’s words

Natural theology can work in either direction: reflection on nature may lead someone toward belief in God, or belief in God may shape how someone understands nature.

McGrath also describes approaches that do not aim to prove God’s existence. Instead, they compare Christian claims with human experience and knowledge of the natural world. A 1736 work on analogy is presented as an example of this kind of approach.

Jonathan Edwards is discussed as arguing that conversion changes how believers see the world: nature’s beauty can appear as a reflection or “shadow” of the excellences of Christ.

The Barth–Brunner debate

McGrath presents the 1934 disagreement between Swiss theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner as a major debate over natural theology.

• Barth objected that natural theology could bypass God’s self-revelation in Christ and make revelation seem unnecessary. He rejected the idea that human nature contains an independent “point of contact” for revelation.
• Brunner argued for a legitimate natural theology grounded in creation and the belief that human beings bear the image of God. Though human nature is sinful, he held that this image leaves people capable of discerning something of God.

Barth rejected Brunner’s position, maintaining that any point of contact with God results from the Word of God rather than being built into human nature.

Theology and the natural sciences

McGrath outlines three models for understanding the relationship between science and theology:

1. Conflict or warfare: Science and theology are treated as permanently opposed. McGrath notes that historians have widely criticized this account, though it remains influential in popular culture.
2. Isolation: Science and theology are assigned separate domains and are not expected to engage with one another. Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of “non-overlapping magisteria” is an example.
3. Dialogue: Science and theology are encouraged to interact. McGrath favors this approach, arguing that critical or constructive engagement may enrich both and provide a more satisfying understanding of the universe.

Speakers and sources featured

• Speaker: Alister McGrath
• Theologians and thinkers discussed: Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Jay Gould
• Texts and references mentioned: Colossians 1; Psalm 19; Romans 1:19; The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins, 2006); Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” proposal; and a 1736 work on analogy, apparently referring to Joseph Butler’s Analogy of Religion.