Creation 4: Faith and Science

It wasn’t until 1992 that the UM Social Principles explicitly affirmed the validity of science and “encourage[d] dialogue between scientific and theological communities.” However, there has never been widespread controversy within the Methodist tradition about the validity of scientific discovery and natural philosophy, in part because the Methodist movement began and grew alongside the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century.

During that time, John Wesley was fully aware of and deeply engaged with natural philosophy of his day. He affirmed its value in deepening our understanding of the world yet maintained that God and creation are beyond human knowledge and understanding. In other words, he believed, as the current Social Principles say, that “science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible.”

Do the proposed revisions over-simplify?

The proposed revised Social Principles drastically simplify the affirmation of science, and in my opinion do so too much. Two paragraphs of rich, nuanced language are collapsed into a single sentence:

“We affirm the value of science and reason in providing deeper understandings of the origins and functioning of the cosmos.”

This is problematic because it assumes the debate is settled to the point where a well-reasoned argument is no longer necessary. But this is unfortunately not the case. Young earth creationism and other anti-scientific theories continue to have a foothold in many religious communities, and United Methodism would do well to keep language that unequivocally rejects such theories.

Furthermore, removing the phrase, “science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible” risks losing sight of the way these disciplines influence one another and work together for greater knowledge of the natural and spiritual worlds. They are not two parallel, exclusive pursuits, but continually intersecting and related fields of study, both of which can help us understand the natural world and the divine Creator more fully.

Two helpful additions

The revised Social Principles include two helpful additions which previous versions of the SP did not mention:

1. A call for ethical standards in scientific research
2. An affirmation of traditional wisdom found within indigenous communities.

Summary and Suggestions

In this section the revised Social Principles over-simplify a commitment to science and reason, and I suggest retaining at least some of the language of science and theology as complementary and mutually compatible, such as this sentence in the 2016 Social Principles:

“We find the as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced.”

I welcome the call for ethical standards in scientific research, and hope that the UMC is prepared to follow through on this call by offering specific recommendations of its own.

The affirmation of traditional wisdom found within indigenous communities is another step in building trust with these communities where trust has not always been present. I also hope this statement begins a deeper conversation and relationship rather than assuming the matter is settled with a one-sentence positional statement.

---

This concludes the Community of All Creation unit.

Coming in January: The Economic Community

Top photo: Weston, Vermont, U.S.A., 2012.