Reviewed Book: Ford, Adam. Universe: God, Science and the Human Person. Mystic, Conn: Twenty-Third Publications, 1987

Heggan, Bruce

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 15Issue 2 Theology of the Cross: Theory and Practice Article 2011-1-1989Universe: God, Science and the Human PersonBruce HegganFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationHeggan, Bruce (1989) "Universe: God, Science and the Human Person," Consensus: Vol. 15 : Iss. 2 , Article 20.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol15/iss2/20138 Consensusof the right because the two were formally too similar, a hypothesis at leastpartially borne out by my own research into Tillich and Hirsch. Accordingto Scholder, it is only Barth’s theology, which saw theology not as unpolit-ical or apolitical but as in some sense pre-political, that was able to rallyelements of the churches against the German Christian forces. Ironically,Barth’s attempt to develop independent theological criteria for Christianfaith and action in the world was the most effective politically.Scholder does admit that Barth’s theology had its shortcomings. Hismost incisive critique is:. . . Barth’s objections to any political theology remain theologicallyvalid, as does his assertion of the theological clarification needed“first of all” before the church expressed itself on political ques-tions. But for the church there is certainly not only the preachingof reconciliation but also the act of reconciliation, which expressesitself in a helping and compassionate solidarity with the victims ofthis and every age. Perhaps the fact that Barth did not perceiveand did not ponder this possibility was the only real weakness inhis position (435).Barth’s theology and that of the Confessing Church in general wastoo concerned with theological orthodoxy and not concerned enough withthe atrocities outside the boundaries of the church. The challenge for thechurch today, cls then, is to combine sound theological thinking with astutepolitical analysis in which it declares itself unambiguously for the victimsof all political ideologies, whether of the left, centre, or right.A. James ReimerConrad Grebel College, University of WaterloUniverse: God, Science and the Human PersonAdam FordMystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1987228 pp. U.S. $9.95 paperI have heard that, when the first nuclear device was exploded overthe New Mexico desert, Albert Einstein said, “Now everything is differ-ent, except the way people think.” This volume by Adam Ford, chaplainto St. Paul’s Girls’ School, London, England, priest in Ordinary to theQueen at London’s Chapel Royal, and an avid amateur astronomer, is afine attempt at enabling women and men of faith to think differently in atechnological, nuclear age, informed by scientific inquiry into the structureof the whole of the universe.The prevailing mood of the book is wonder. In the spirit of the Psalmist,Ford sees the whole of the creation bearing witness to the gory of God. Sci-entific investigation into microscopic minutae and vast cosmic reaches isBook Reviews 139not, to Ford’s way of thinking, in conflict with faith in the God revealed tous in Christian Scripture. Rather, he writes, “Science, the dispeller of mys-teries, becomes the proclaimer of mystery, while theology reveals meaning”(22). Theories of cosmic origins (such as the “Big Bang” theory) reflectthe primary agency of a personal God; and the claims of astrophysics con-cerning the vastness and antiquity of the universe add a sense of awe to ourconsideration of the “ancient of days”. The theories of evolution, modifiedonly slightly from the original proposals of Charles Darwin, do not suggesta chancy and mechanistic development of life in a godless universe. Rather,they bear witness to the guidance of a divine spirit in the development oflife from its most primitive forms to the human image of God as physical,rational, and spiritual being. The miracle of the incarnation is a constanttheme in this book, testifying to the deeper reality of the relationship ofspirit and matter. From this. Ford derives a mandate for theologicallygrounded environmental ethics.I very much appreciate Ford’s attempt to balance scientific discoverywith faithfulness to the concerns of Christian tradition, especially spiri-tuality and christology. However, I am not convinced that he has dealtadequately with the radicality of evil in the universe. He holds optimisti-cally to a future when human beings have matured spiritually, provided wesurvive what he calls our “spiritual adolescence”. He considers much suffer-ing in the world to be the suffering of growth, and a necessary consequenceof the exercise of human freedom. The suffering that is indeed unjust herefers to the cross, the symbol of God’s own incarnational participation inthe suffering of the whole of creation. In a world of massive injustice andnatural disasters, I am not convinced that this is adequate. But I am notsurprised that this is a problem for him: it is a difficult theological task tobalance vast cosmic splendor with the particularities of human suffering.This is not a book of doctrine but a book that seeks to relate historicChristian doctrine to the discoveries of modern science. It could be a goodtext for a college class in science and religion, or for a zealous adult studygroup. The book includes recommendations for further reading and discus-sion questions for each chapter. It is likely to raise a few eyebrows; but itspurpose has been to help make dialog between Christian faith and modernscience possible on a popular level. In this it has succeeded nicely.Bruce HegganMontreal, Quebec

Universe: God, Science and the Human Person

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 15
Issue 2 Theology of the Cross: Theory and Practice Article 20
11-1-1989
Universe: God, Science and the Human Person
Bruce Heggan
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an
authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Heggan, Bruce (1989) "Universe: God, Science and the Human Person," Consensus: Vol. 15 : Iss. 2 , Article 20.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol15/iss2/20
138 Consensus
of the right because the two were formally too similar, a hypothesis at least
partially borne out by my own research into Tillich and Hirsch. According
to Scholder, it is only Barth’s theology, which saw theology not as unpolit-
ical or apolitical but as in some sense pre-political, that was able to rally
elements of the churches against the German Christian forces. Ironically,
Barth’s attempt to develop independent theological criteria for Christian
faith and action in the world was the most effective politically.
Scholder does admit that Barth’s theology had its shortcomings. His
most incisive critique is:
. . . Barth’s objections to any political theology remain theologically
valid, as does his assertion of the theological clarification needed
“first of all” before the church expressed itself on political ques-
tions. But for the church there is certainly not only the preaching
of reconciliation but also the act of reconciliation, which expresses
itself in a helping and compassionate solidarity with the victims of
this and every age. Perhaps the fact that Barth did not perceive
and did not ponder this possibility was the only real weakness in
his position (435).
Barth’s theology and that of the Confessing Church in general was
too concerned with theological orthodoxy and not concerned enough with
the atrocities outside the boundaries of the church. The challenge for the
church today, cls then, is to combine sound theological thinking with astute
political analysis in which it declares itself unambiguously for the victims
of all political ideologies, whether of the left, centre, or right.
A. James Reimer
Conrad Grebel College, University of Waterlo
Universe: God, Science and the Human Person
Adam Ford
Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1987
228 pp. U.S. $9.95 paper
I have heard that, when the first nuclear device was exploded over
the New Mexico desert, Albert Einstein said, “Now everything is differ-
ent, except the way people think.” This volume by Adam Ford, chaplain
to St. Paul’s Girls’ School, London, England, priest in Ordinary to the
Queen at London’s Chapel Royal, and an avid amateur astronomer, is a
fine attempt at enabling women and men of faith to think differently in a
technological, nuclear age, informed by scientific inquiry into the structure
of the whole of the universe.
The prevailing mood of the book is wonder. In the spirit of the Psalmist,
Ford sees the whole of the creation bearing witness to the gory of God. Sci-
entific investigation into microscopic minutae and vast cosmic reaches is
Book Reviews 139
not, to Ford’s way of thinking, in conflict with faith in the God revealed to
us in Christian Scripture. Rather, he writes, “Science, the dispeller of mys-
teries, becomes the proclaimer of mystery, while theology reveals meaning”
(22). Theories of cosmic origins (such as the “Big Bang” theory) reflect
the primary agency of a personal God; and the claims of astrophysics con-
cerning the vastness and antiquity of the universe add a sense of awe to our
consideration of the “ancient of days”. The theories of evolution, modified
only slightly from the original proposals of Charles Darwin, do not suggest
a chancy and mechanistic development of life in a godless universe. Rather,
they bear witness to the guidance of a divine spirit in the development of
life from its most primitive forms to the human image of God as physical,
rational, and spiritual being. The miracle of the incarnation is a constant
theme in this book, testifying to the deeper reality of the relationship of
spirit and matter. From this. Ford derives a mandate for theologically
grounded environmental ethics.
I very much appreciate Ford’s attempt to balance scientific discovery
with faithfulness to the concerns of Christian tradition, especially spiri-
tuality and christology. However, I am not convinced that he has dealt
adequately with the radicality of evil in the universe. He holds optimisti-
cally to a future when human beings have matured spiritually, provided we
survive what he calls our “spiritual adolescence”. He considers much suffer-
ing in the world to be the suffering of growth, and a necessary consequence
of the exercise of human freedom. The suffering that is indeed unjust he
refers to the cross, the symbol of God’s own incarnational participation in
the suffering of the whole of creation. In a world of massive injustice and
natural disasters, I am not convinced that this is adequate. But I am not
surprised that this is a problem for him: it is a difficult theological task to
balance vast cosmic splendor with the particularities of human suffering.
This is not a book of doctrine but a book that seeks to relate historic
Christian doctrine to the discoveries of modern science. It could be a good
text for a college class in science and religion, or for a zealous adult study
group. The book includes recommendations for further reading and discus-
sion questions for each chapter. It is likely to raise a few eyebrows; but its
purpose has been to help make dialog between Christian faith and modern
science possible on a popular level. In this it has succeeded nicely.
Bruce Heggan
Montreal, Quebec


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1994&amp;context=consensus

Universe: God, Science and the Human Person

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons