Thomas Toews

THST 814 Theology and Philosophy

Critical Review
Polkinghorne, John and Michael Welker eds. The End of the World and the Ends of God:
Science and Theology on Eschatology. Theology for the Twenty-first Century.
Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000.

This book is driven by its introductory statement. “Not only our individual life

but also the universe is doomed to physical decay!” Questions such as “Should we be

haunted by the finitude of the universe” serve as the catalyst for this dialogue between

theology and science. It should be noted at the outset that this book is a compilation of

articles by writers who have been directly involved in this recent upsurge in

interdisciplinary dialogue. The book divides itself among four main concerns. 1)

Eschatology in the Natural Sciences; 2) Eschatology in the Cultural Sciences and Ethics;

3) Eschatology in the Biblical Traditions; 4) Eschatology in Theology and Spirituality.

Some chapters, especially those in the first section dealing with the natural sciences, find

much of the material heavily pervaded by scientific jargon that might prove to be more

than a bit difficult to the theologian. This should not discourage those new the area as the

benefits of this expertise is worth the investment in understanding new terminology and

concepts.

Many of the articles rightly attempt to find a model which would provide a

paradigm to understanding and integrating the often competing and outright contradictory

statements made by scientists and theologians. From the outset, eschatology is forged

into this role, though the reader will have to determine if this has been done honestly. By

honestly, I mean, has the dialogue compromised one of the two, namely science or

theology, to such an extent that the original claims of the discipline are no longer

cogently understandable.
 This attempt is most clearly recognizable in those articles dealing more with the

theological rather than scientific notions. This may well be because as is noted by several

authors, eschatology has long been a concern of theology (111) whereas modern

“science” is a recent development and the concept of eschatology is thus recent a fortiori

in science itself. The problem is that no real suggestion comes about. What is clear is

that scientism and creationism are to be regarded as untenable. Scientism obviously falls

by the wayside because positive science has failed as a Weltanschauung and creationism

likewise is left aside because the science in scientism has said that it just can’t be that

way. (114)

The suggestion is to listen to science (120), leave Kant for Aquinas (121) and

proceed to do natural theology. What is interesting to those on the outside of this

“dialogue” is that those interested in the dialogue all seem to be Christian scientists

somehow attempting to prevent themselves from falling into a sad state of cognitive

dissonance. It should be noted that of the 17 contributors to the book, only four are listed

as professors currently or formerly in the area of science. One of these is a member of

the Society of Jesus and staff scientist for the Vatican, another is currently an Anglican

priest and a third is a currently a professor in theology and the natural sciences. It seems

unfortunate that other “scientists” could not be found. This does not impinge upon the

scientific aspects of the book, rather upon the claims that scientists are really interested in

this type of work.

In order to save face, there has to be a scapegoat on which to sacrifice the last

several centuries worth of guilt and acrimony that has developed between these two

“kissing” cousins. The six-day creation story of the biblical book of Genesis is chosen by

the theologians and the metaphysical claims of scientism are sacrificed by the scientists.
What is left is a combination of the two; the origins of life and the physical universe are

left to the scientists to explain and the ends of both are given to the theologians. One

author even does a masterful job of combining the Catholic and liberal Protestant

“contributions” to this Babel by suggesting that the two areas of Christianity that provide

the proper paradigm are the gospel of Christ and the sacraments of the church. (122)

One author begins by noting that some religious traditions insist on maintaining

those tenets of theology which science has shown to be false (65) and then at then of his

article claims that one of the remedies to the conflict between science and religion is to

recognize the limits of natural science. (77) Of course, it would appear that these limits

would definitely be in the scientific realm but rather where science has crossed over into

theology.

There are several themes that replay themselves several times in the context of the

meta-narrative of eschatology. These include the notions of continuity and discontinuity,

finitude and infinite, and hope and despair. One author writes that as finitude

“characterizes life as described by the natural sciences” in that “the emergence of

individual life was made possible by the invention of death” so “in this respect the

Christian hope for eternal life implies no contradiction to scientific insights.” (192) This

is in an article from the section on Eschatology and the Biblical texts. Noticeably absent

is any concept of the difficulties of death before sin. Though sin is talked about in some

of the articles, it is expressly pointed out by one (176) that atonement is not even

mentioned in the Markan account of the crucifixion.

Hope is described as “hope for healing, for the redeeming grace, which brings the

confused and distorted past to an end in such a way that there is a new beginning.” Here

are interesting resonating points for some Adventist interpretations of the millennium of
Revelation. The millennium is seen by some scholars and writers as a transition period

between the old and the new. Memories are carried over by those who are taken up for

the one thousand year reign and events and mishaps of the former life are seen in a way

that brings understanding, healing and “hope.”

Overall, this book has many interesting articles. The need for more than just

dialogue is quite evident though. There is not agreement on what might be properly

considered as the Christian narrative and therefore what Christian eschatology should

include under its domain. In order for there to be real progress in the conversation

between these two rival giants, clear methodological grounding points need to be agreed

upon. Otherwise, we are left with often mindless speculation based upon a hodge-podge

often disconnected ideas and concepts. Eschatology then ultimately is seen to fail as a

grounding point. It is a clear point of contact between the two but the rules of the game

need to be established before real progress can be made.