Content area
Full Text
In discussions of the integration of theology and psychology, the issue of the relative epistemic authority of the deliverances of theological method and the deliverances of psychological method must be addressed. It is often assumed that the fallible interpretations of Scripture are on an equal footing with the fallible interpretations of psychological research. But this poses a problem for the integrationist in cases in which our best interpretations of Scripture conflict to some degree with our best interpretations of the psychological research. This article presents an epistemological argument for the higher authority of wellgrounded theological claims.
"Most treatises on religious authority assert that God is the final authority ... but this bare assertion does not make its way. Unless the assertion is expressed in a more concrete fashion it becomes mere platitude."
- Bernard Ramm (1957, p. 18)
In his three-volume work on theological methodology, entitled A Scientific Theology, Allster McGrath (2001) calls for the natural sciences to serve as the new handmaid to theology (i.e., ancilla theologiae nova). McGrath writes, "Where medieval writers had extolled the virtues of philosophy as ancilla theologiae, I had come to the different - though clearly related - conclusion that it was a natural philosophy [i.e., science] which would best serve this purpose" (p. xvii)· McGrath identifies that the "potential of the approach is that it allows for rigorous exploration of ideas, allowing parallels with other spheres of human intellectual activity to be appreciated and appropriated" (p. 10). McGrath goes on to note that the "danger of the approach is that ideas whose origins, nature and justification lie outside the Christian faith may come to have a significant or decisive influence over how the Christian faith is presented or conceived" (p. 10). Hence, McGrath is quick to make clear that the sciences must serve theology in a ministerial, rather than magisterial, capacity. With this assumption in place, McGrath argues that a meaningful dialogue and exchange between science and theology is not only "legitimated" but "demanded" by the Christian doctrine of creation (p. 20-21).
Clearly, McGrath (2001) is correct in maintaining that the integration of the natural sciences, including the social sciences, with theology holds great promise for both disciplines. But the issue is pressed as to how to...