REGENT UNIVERSITY

NEW WINE IN OLD WINESKINS?

A PROPOSED PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC CONVERSATION WITH JUDAISM ABOUT SCIENCE

SUBMITTED TO AMOS YONG, PH.D.

FOR THE DEGREE REQUIREMENTS OF A

PH. D.

RTCH 785: SEMINAR - RENEWAL & SCIENCE

BY

MALCOLM R. BRUBAKER

AUGUST 14, 2007

Brubaker

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….………………….3

CONTEMPORARY ISSUE OF FAITH AND SCIENCE………………………………..………………...4

A BRIEF LOOK AT JUDAISM AND SCIENCE’S LONG HISTORY………………….………………..5

1. Ancient and Medieval Periods………..…...……………………….………………….…………….6

2. Renaissance and Early Modern Periods.....……………………………………………….…………5

3. Twentieth Century……..……………………………………………………………………….……8

4. Late Twentieth Century and Beyond……………..…………………………………………...……..8

POINTS OF SHARED RELIGIOUS OUTLOOK…………….…………………………………………....9

1. The Importance of Narrative…………………………………………………………………….…..9

2. Mystical Encounter with Divine Sublimity………………………………………………..……….10

3. Balancing Science and Faith…………………………………..……………………………....……12

POINTS OF DIVERGENT RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS……………………………………………..……..12

1. The Role of Tradition..………………………………………………………………………......….13

2. The Value of a Questioning Dialogue…………………………………………………..…………..13

3. A Positive Stance toward Science…………………………………………………….……….……14

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………...15

WORKS CITED..…………………….……………………………………………………………………..16

Abstract: All contemporary religionists are facing the challenge of science as a way of knowing, the determination of truth. We in the PC Renewal movement should consider the long history of Judaism’s relationship to knowledge in general and science in particular. Though Judaism and the PC Renewal movement are different in many respects, there are commonalities that should be profitably explored to help each religious tradition grapple with the contemporary issues of faith and science. Has Renewal Theology found a dialogue partner with Judaism? The paper will explore areas of convergence and divergence between these two theological and cultural traditions from the perspective of North American “classical” Pentecostalism.

2

Brubaker

NEW WINE IN OLD WINESKINS?A PROPOSED PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC CONVERSATION WITH JUDAISM ABOUT SCIENCE

By Malcolm R. Brubaker

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29:29 (NRSV; v 28 in the Hebrew Bible)

INTRODUCTION

Has the Pentecostal Charismatic (PC) world discovered science as one of the “tongues of men and of

angels” in order to declare “the wonders of God” (1 Cor 13:1 and Acts 2:11)? A recent Templeton-funded

colloquium of Renewal scholars and graduate students would seem to answer this question with a definitive

“yes.” For ten days on the campus of Pat Robertson-founded Regent University they presented papers and

discussed topics dealing with hard sciences such as chemistry and physics as well as the soft sciences such as

psychology, sociology and anthropology. Theological and philosophical reflections were also part of the

intellectual mix. Questions dealing with the impact of scientific paradigm shifts, role of God’s action in the

world, and narrative as a scientific method were raised. Additional guest lecturers stimulated the debate with

their views on theistic evolution and scientific emergence theories.

There is additional evidence for a growing awareness about science by the PC tradition. The 2008 annual

meeting of the Society of Pentecostal Studies will join with the Wesleyan Theological Society to discuss “Sighs,

Signs, and Significance: Pentecostal and Wesleyan Explorations of Science and Creation.”1 Science and

theology faculty at Valley Forge Christian College, an Assemblies of God school, organized a discussion club to

debate relevant scientific and theological questions despite the fact that the school does not yet have a science

major. Science major graduates from schools like Evangel University, Lee University, and Vanguard University

1 There is a personal link between the Regent University colloquium and the SPS gathering. Amos Yong was a co-organizer of the 2007 colloquium and is the program chairperson for the 2008 SPS meeting. Yong has written a number of articles dealing with science. One example is “The Spirit and Creation: Possibilities and Challenges for a Dialogue between Pentecostal Theology and the Sciences,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 25 (2006): 82-110.

3

Brubakerhave earned advanced degrees in many scientific fields.2 Another example of scholarly interest is a historical

article dealing with how Pentecostal and Holiness traditions handled concerns over Darwinism.3

With such a growing awareness of science within the Renewal tradition this paper would like to propose

that it would be prudent to consider how other and older religious traditions have and are dealing with scientific

concerns.4 Now that the modern Renewal movement in North America has reached its century mark, it should

be able to address the concerns of many religious people regarding the definition, nature, and purpose of

science. What can a study of Roman Catholics’ long and entangled history with science teach us?5 How about

Eastern Orthodoxy?6 Or Lutheran and Reformed traditions? Even Buddhist and Muslim traditions can

contribute to our understanding.7

Our concern in this paper is to explore what Renewal theology can learn from Judaism. After considering

the scientific challenge facing all religious world views in contemporary Western society, we will briefly survey

Judaism’s long history of dialogue with ancient, medieval, and modern forms of scientific theory and

knowledge. Then we will look for similarities and dissimilarities between the two that may reveal what lessons

the PC Renewal tradition may profit from Judaism.

CONTEMPORARY ISSUE OF FAITH WITH SCIENCE

A central concern for both Judaism and Renewal religionists is how to live in two worlds: the world of the

Bible and the world of modern science.8 For example, there is irony that Pentecostals use electronic media for

religious programming that debunks evolutionary theory. Or to note that the theory of natural selection is

referred to in Israeli public schools as “torat Darwin” (the torah of Darwin).9 As one Jewish writer noted, more

2 For example, an Evangel U. graduate, married to this writer’s niece, earned his doctorate at Oregon State University in human genetics with additional post-doc research in the scientific “golden triangle” of Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina.3 Ronald L. Numbers, “Creation, Evolution, and Holy Ghost Religion: Holiness and Pentecostal Responses to Darwinism,” chapter 6 in Darwinism Comes to America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 111-35.4 Amos Yong has written papers dealing with American Evangelicalism and science, “God and the Evangelical Laboratory: Recent Conservative Protestant Thinking about Theology and Science,” Theology and Science 5.2 (2007): 203-21.5 Denis Edwards, Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001).6 For example see Alexei V. Nesteruk, Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) or Edmund Rybarczyk, Beyond Salvation: Eastern Orthodoxy and Classical Pentecostalism on Becoming Like Christ. Paternoster Theological Monographs (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2004).7 See Amos Yong, “Christian and Buddhist Perspectives on Neuropsychology and the Human Person: Pneuma and Pratityasamutpada, Zygon 40.1 (March 2005): 143-165.8 Robert Pollack, “DNA AND NESHAMAH: Locating the Soul in an Age of Molecular Medicine.” Cross Currents 53.2 (Summer 2003): 231. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007. He notes, “The problem is the reality of being a member of two contradictory cultures having contradictory claims and assumptions.”9 Robert Pollack, The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith: Order, Meaning, and Free Will in Modern Medical Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 58.

4

BrubakerAmerican Jews read the science columns of the New York Times than the columns of the Torah.10 A sign of this

concern to live in both worlds is the addition of classes in Jewish and Christian seminaries that touch upon

science so that future rabbis and ministers are conversant in scientific language and concepts that bear on

religious matters.

Though there are specific issues such as genetics, the main specter for religious world-views is a militant

scientism that seizes all claims to truth-verification. In earlier times scientists discovered how nature worked

but today some wish to change how nature works, “Galileo set out to read the Book of Nature; Genentech

scientists aspire to edit it.”11 But as one rabbi put it, beware of those who remove God from the throne in a

pretense of superior knowledge only to enthrone someone or something else.12

Perhaps there is a middle way as represented in Robert Pollack’s discussion of the “soul” in light of DNA

research.13 He presents the current state of our knowledge regarding the nature of genetics and the question of

what and where the soul is. Though Greek, Christian, and Jewish theologians have dealt with the matter,

modern scientific study puts a fresh perspective to the age-old question. Rather than being a direct competitor to

theology, science can act as a stimulant to new expressions of even standard conclusions or point the way to new

ideas entirely.14

A BRIEF LOOK AT JUDAISM AND SCIENCE’S LONG HISTORY

Judaism is not a monolithic religion and has many different aspects in its relationship to Western

philosophy and scientific thought. An 1889 Jewish writer posed the question well for all religious-science

dialogues, “What is the position of science toward religion, and in what respects has religion any dealing with

science?”15 Over the past 2000 years specific Jewish answers to that question have ranged all over the spectrum

from rejection, denial, and acceptance of science.16 One rubric classifies the answers to that question in a five-

10 Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer, “Science and Spirit: Reconstructionist Theology for the 21st Century.” The Reconstructionist 70.1 (Fall 2005): 47. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.11 Noah J. Efron, “Playing God,” in Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday (edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr..; Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005), 97.12 Robert Pollack, “The Faith of Biology,” 3.13 Pollack, “DNA and NESHAMAH,” 231-47. 14 Shalom Carmy, “‘A Religion Challenged by Science’ – Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence,” Tradition 39.2 (Summer 2005): 1. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007. Compare that to Pope John Paul II’s 1996 statement, “Our bodies may have evolved but our souls are provided by God.” Quoted by Fuchs-Kreimer, “Science and Spirit,” 48.15 Rabbi Louis Grossmann, Some Chapters on Judaism and the Science of Religion (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889), 123.16 Pollack, The Faith of Biology, 4-5.

5

Brubakerfold manner: (1) Some like Richard Dawkins deny God’s existence, (2) some like Tertullian and al Ghazah deny

science, (3) some like Spinoza and William Paley redefine God, (4) some like Averroës and Steven J. Gould

separate science and religion, and (5) some declare God as totally unknowable and thus end of argument.17 We

will not be systematic in our survey but will find representative Jewish voices in the conversation between faith

and science.

1. Ancient and Medieval Periods – Early on there was little in the way of what we call today “science.”18

Rather, Aristotle’s thought on nature dominated the first thousand years of the Common Era for Jews,

Christians, and Muslims. An early philosopher of science was Saadia Gaon (882-942 C.E.), a Babylonian

Talmudist. He defined science as that which was observable and accessible by rational thought but it was God

who had revealed Himself to Moses and the prophets and made human knowledge possible.19 Abraham Ibn

David (1110-1180) and his greater student, Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) worked with Aristotle.

Maimonides suggested that there is an inherent perplexity in the limits of human understanding of the world.

This rational limitation may have contributed to the development of Jewish Kabbala teaching and stunted further

scientific thought among medieval Jewish thinkers.20 Yet ironically Jewish rabbis brought Aristotle to Europe

and that may have stimulated Western scientific development.21

2. Renaissance and Early Modern Periods – The vicissitudes of Jewish existence during the late Middle Ages

and early Modern Period contributed to the shaping of the Jewish philosopher, Spinoza (1632-1677). Born of

immigrant Portuguese Jewish family in Amsterdam, Spinoza’s radical thought led him into conflict with

traditional Judaism and his expulsion from it. His critical view of Scripture led him to find knowledge

elsewhere. For him science was the exercise of intellectual skills to seek truth by reason while religion was a

17 James A. Arieti and Patrick A. Wilson, The Scientific & the Divine: Conflict and Reconciliation from Ancient Greece to the Present (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), 306-10. Ian G. Barbour has provided the standard paradigm of conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration in his work, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. Revised and expanded edition of Religion in an Age of Science (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), 105. Compare Mikael Stenmark’s elaborative gird of contemporary and historical aspects spread over four dimensions, How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensinal Model (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 14.18 As example of applied geometry in 150 C.E. Rabbi Nehemiah reconciled the dimensions of Solomon’s circular ritual bowl to the known value of π by suggesting that the small discrepancy was due to the way in which the measurement had been made rather than in the factual error of the author. Arieti and Wilson, The Scientific and the Divine, 9-10.19 Norbert M. Samuelson, “On the Symbiosis of Science and Religion: A Jewish Perspective.” Zygon 35.1 (March 2000): 84. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on June 26, 2007.20 Arieti, The Scientific and the Divine, 193. Orthodox Jews follow Kabbalistic thought and find in it mathematical and scientific models for understanding the world. See Leonora Leet, The Secret Doctrine of Kabbalah: Rediscovering the Key to Hebraic Sacred Science (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1999), 3.21 Samuelson, “On the Symbiosis of Science and Religion,” 88.

6

Brubakerpolitical skill to create good for society.22 God was not to be separated from the laws of nature – all was God.23

Some thought him an atheist; he saw himself as religious. His influence became widespread following his death

and the posthumous publication of many of his writings.

Geoffrey Cantor’s study of British Quakers and Jews from 1650 to 1900 reveals the social, political, and

intellectual context for religious minorities’ struggles with modernity.24 In the 18-19th centuries some Jewish

writers followed the discussions about God’s existence based on the design argument but many did not. The

majority felt that their religious focus should be on duty and not doctrine.25 A further Jewish impulse was

toward an empiricism that relied on the senses rather than an idealist approach. This opened Jewish thought to

accept and sometimes embrace the evolutionary thought of Charles Darwin. An 1875 contributor to the Jewish

Chronicle actually suggested that the Bible taught evolutionary views.26 Many felt that Judaism in contrast to

Christianity was the religion of reason rather than superstition. As the 20th century approached and with it

immigrant Jews from very conservative and Orthodox Eastern Europe, there arose more splits among British

Jews into the various religious factions that we find today. The progressive groups supported evolutionary

theory while the conservative groups resisted its modernistic influence that became associated with an atheistic

agenda of such men as Aldous Huxley. A representative of the former group is Claude Goldsmid Montefiore

(1858-1936). He had studied under the liberal Oxford biblical scholar, Benjamin Jowett, and tended to follow

current scientific thought though it appeared to conflict with traditional understandings of the Bible.27 Raphael

Meldola (1849-1915), a chemist by vocation and naturalist by avocation, avidly promoted Darwinian teaching

and corresponded with Darwin.28 He believed one didn’t have to be an atheist to be an evolutionist.

On the American side of the Atlantic Jewish intellectual life paralleled the British side. There were

progressive forces that welcomed the rising scientific world.29 A proponent of a complimentary approach to

faith and science was Louis Grossmann. His 1889 book reflected a positive regard for science as a separate

22 Samuelson, “On the Symbiosis of Science and Religion,” 89-91.23 Arieti, The Scientific and the Divine, 226.24 Geoffrey Cantor, Quakers, Jews, and Science: Religious Responses to Modernity and to Sciences in Britain, 1650-1900 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).25 Cantor, Quakers, Jews, and Science, 308-09.26 Cantor, Quakers, Jews, and Science, 332.27 Cantor, Quakers, Jews, and Science, 337.28 Cantor, Quakers, Jews, and Science, 340f.29 Joseph L. Blau, “An American-Jewish View of the Evolution Controversey,” Hebrew Union College Annual 20.1 (1947): 617-634. Blau reviewed the story of an early American rabbi who held to evolutionary views in the 1880s.

7

Brubakerdepartment of truth from religion. He commented, “This secular knowledge, conventionally foreign to religion,

is of practical value as the aggregate experience and wisdom of mankind.”30 Science held great promises for the

century ahead.

3. The Twentieth Century – The post World War I period saw the rise of the American public university and

its role as a germinating bed for bold new ideas. Christians and Jews intellectuals found it a place for new ideas

freed from any association with institutional religion found at most private colleges.31 The Scopes’ “monkey

trial” of July 1925 exemplified this new mindset that religion was holding back the progress of science.

By the 1930s the clouds of anti-Semitism over Germany, the Great Depression, and the theories of Einstein

and Heisenberg darkened the earlier optimistic view of science as the progressive answer to all of mankind’s

problems. In a 1939 Oxford University published essay, Moses L. Isaacs warned of a scientism-dominated

world in which religion was despised and science would become the final arbiter of truth.32 The phrase,

“science has proved,” had become the argument-ending phrase. Religionists would be considered psychological

misfits. Isaacs’ metaphor for the science-faith relationship was that of a battle for the mind as university

freshmen were allured away from traditional religious beliefs to adopt more progressive and scientifically

respectable thought.33

The post-World War II world held no illusions of progress for the many Jewish people who contemplated

the horrors of a Nazi scientism that promoted a superior racial evolutionary theory as the pretext to kill unfit

races and individuals. In 1946 William Kisch supported a science that was free of prejudice and pride and

should be regarded with critical respect as “the [scientific] truths of today are the fallacies of tomorrow.”34 One

should not forget that the ultimate answers of life are beyond human ability.

4. Late Twentieth Century and Beyond – We will listen to three final Jewish voices that demonstrate some of

the rich diversity in today’s discussion. The first voices are two authors of a textbook on science for young

minds. In Old Wine New Flasks: Reflections on Science and Jewish Tradition Roald Hoffmann and Shira

30 Rabbi Louis Grossmann, Some Chapters on Judaism and the Science of Religion, 123.31 Samuelson, “On the Symbiosis of Science and Religion,” 92.32 Moses L. Isaacs, “The Challenge of Science,” in Judaism in a Changing World (Edited by Leo Jung; New York: Oxford University Press, 1939), 7533 Isaacs, “The Challenge of Science,” 69.34 Bruno Kisch, “Natural Science in Israel of Tomorrow,” in Israel of Tomorrow (edited by Leo Jung; New York: Herald Square Press, 1946), 314.

8

BrubakerLeibowitz Schmidt express the optimistic view that science and faith are complementary: chemistry, for

instance, deals with molecules which are a half-way spatial point between quirks and galaxies while Judaism

focuses on the everydayness of life.35 Both science and Jewish faith deal with practical matters.

The last voice is that of a mainstream religious critique of Jewish mysticism. In a 1983 journal article

Richard L. Rubenstein explored the mystical writings of Lawrence Kushner.36 Kushner had tried to show how

Jewish mysticism felt well with current cosmological theories about the big bang beginnings of the universe

while yet holding a more positive eschatological outcome in a final mergence of the universe with the unknown

God. Rubenstein’s primary critique is that such an emphasis only on the beginning and the end left little theory

to support the middle – where life is lived in the present.

Hopefully our survey has given a flavor for the long and complex conversation that the various forms of

Judaism has had with science. Next, we will turn to consider any similarities and dissimilarities between the

Renewal movement and Judaism that could encourage and clarify a dialogue by finding lines of agreement as

well as boundaries of dissent.

POINTS OF SHARED RELIGIOUS OUTLOOK

Particularly in the so-called postmodern or post-Enlightenment period there are more opportunities for a

meaningful consideration of religion by scientists. Whether it be Samuelson’s traditional Judaism or

Polkinghorne’s Anglicanism there is “a desire to retrieve and justify a whole set of traditional ways of thinking

previously ignored or dismissed.”37 We will consider three areas of common concern that Judaism and the PC

Renewal Movement share in their interaction with science.

1. The Importance of Narrative – Neither Judaism nor the Renewal movement have been known to produce

the same kind of systematic works of thought such as exemplified by Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed

theologies. Instead Judaism and the Renewal movement have considered the role of “story” important in

shaping and communicating their ideas, rituals, and practices. Often if you ask a rabbi a question, you get a

35 Roald Hoffmann and Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, Old Wine New Flasks: Reflections on Science and Judaism (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997), x.36 Richard L. Rubenstein, “Science and Spirit in Contemporary Jewish Mysticism,” Cross Currents 33.4 (Winter 1983/84): 405. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.37 James F. Moore, “How Religious Tradition Survives in the World of Science: John Polkinghorne and Norbert Samuelson,” 32.1 (March 1997): 115-24. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.

9

Brubakerstory rather than a logical or direct response.38 In fact, Fuchs-Kremer suggested in light of scientific

evolutionary theories that offer rational ideas for the creation of life, the role of story is all the more important to

communicate values and significance, “If there is nothing but matter, all the more do we need stories to make

meaning.”39

On the Renewal side, Frederick Ware has argued that narrative should be considered a valid scientific

methodology. He examined the role that stories of early African American Pentecostal leaders played to convey

a wholistic world-view that incorporates the physical dimensions of spiritual life and experiences.40 Other

studies have stressed the orality of Pentecostal preaching and testimony as conveyers of the tradition’s most

sacred beliefs.41

2. Mystical Encounter with Divine Sublimity – Every religious tradition has its mystical faction, some more

than others. Orthodox Judaism has its Kabbalah tradition while many regard the PC Renewal movement as

being largely mystical or focused on a primitive spirituality.42 Perhaps no one has made a plainer description of

the Renewal movement as being mystical in orientation than University of Akron sociologist, Margaret Poloma.

She entitled her descriptions of the 1990s charismatic revival in Canada, Main Street Mystics: The Toronto

Blessing and Reviving Pentecostalism.43 She said, “While some of their experiences are as old as shamanism,

their interpretations are rooted in Judeo-Christian biblical writings.”44

The importance of this common aspect of both Jewish and PC traditions is a willing to go beyond the

purely rational and explore the experiential aspects of life. Even a mainstream representative of Judaism like

Robert Pollack recognized the value and role of finding meaning in that which transcends science. Feelings are

on a par with science and religion operates on the boundary of the “unknowable and unmeasurable.”45 To deny

38 Roald Hoffmann and Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, Old Wine New Flasks: Reflections on Science and Judaism, often resort to accounts of dialogue between a well-known rabbi and students to draw the learner into the scientific question at hand, see 291-92.39 Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer, “Science and Spirit,” 53.40 Frederick L. Ware, “Pentecostal Religious Experience, Cognitive Neuroscience, and the Use of Narrative in the Study of Consciousness,” unpublished paper for Science & Spirit Initiative Colloquium, Regent University, June 2007.41 One example is Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, Speaking of God: Reading and Preaching the Word of God (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995.42 Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven:The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1995.43 Margaret Poloma, Main Street Mystic: The Toronto Blessing and Reviving Pentecostalism (Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press, 2003).44 Poloma, “Pentecostal/Charismatic Worship: A Window for Research,” in Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday (edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr..; Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005), 584.45 Robert Pollack, The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith, 12.

10

Brubakervalidity to that which cannot be proved empirically is unprovable.46 Often science like religion advances its

frontier of knowledge through a spark of insight that cannot be logically explained.

In today’s so-called “postmodern” world there may be more room for that which cannot be explained. In

fact, many people in both Judaism and PC Renewal come to religious faith through encounter and spiritual

experience. The formal “proofs” for God’s existence, such as the argument from design, may have their place,

but it is the sense of encounter with the God of the universe that moves people to faith. Writing about Robert

Kaplan’s reliance upon experience rather than metaphysics Fuchs-Kreimer noted, “Men must acquire a religious

faith, not by being reasoned to about God, but by experiencing God’s power in making life worthwhile.”47

Shalom Carmy concluded that the contemporary anthropic principle does not satisfactorily lead to belief in God

any more than the 18th century arguments for God from a Newtonian designed world. He said it this way,

“[T]he road to God through the biological world and the knowledge of that world does not turn up at the end of

a proof, as a clinching inference and a string of inferences and information.”48

Both Jewish and PC Renewal sense and experience of God’s power are experienced in ways that are not

necessarily “safe” or comforting. In the book of Job God reminds Job about the fierce behemoth and leviathan.

They both fascinate and intimidate and yet call humans to a proper humility and worship of the One who created

them.49 The role of glossolalia, people falling down “under the Spirit,” and prophetic utterances in PC Renewal

churches can be frightening but they tell the visitor that God is present.50

Daniel C. Matt, writing in the Jewish mystical tradition, suggests that even the role of words [whether of

men or of angels?] can obscure the religious sensibilities of the divine. Rather silent, “breathing” prayer can be

an effective experience with God. Compare that with pentecostal groans and wordless sounds of the apostle

Paul’s description of the Spirit in the early church, “that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words”

(Romans 8:29). For Matt the study of science evokes a sense of religious wonder rather than it “demystifying”

46 Pollack, The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith, 17.47 Fuchs-Kreimer, “Science and Faith,” 52.48 Carmy, “‘A Religion Challenged by Science’ – Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence,” 2.49 Carmy, “‘A Religion Challenged by Science’ – Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence,” 3.50 1 Corinthians 14:20-25.

11

Brubakernature and leaving one an atheist, “[W]hat science shows us about the evolution of our universe and ourselves is

as awesome to me as Genesis or the Kabbalah.”51

3. Balancing Science and Faith – Both Judaism and the PC Renewal movement face the challenge of

addressing scientific concerns while yet retaining their vital spirituality. Carmy warns that Jewish focus on

these science and faith issues can become a “sideshow” diverting attention from the study of Torah. It is Torah

that offers the ultimate guide in the mysteries of the human soul. One hears similar voices of warning in the PC

Renewal world. Steven Land passionately calls Pentecostals back to their spiritual roots and leave the dryness

of respectability.52

Rubenstein’s critique of Lawrence Kushner’s Jewish mysticism also applies to the PC Renewal tradition.

He said that Kushner had dealt with some of the scientific and religious concerns about the beginning and end of

creation but was weak in dealing with the here and now.53 Similarly, the eschatological interest of the

Pentecostal movement has generated criticism that it is more concerned about heaven’s pearly gates than the

struggles of people on earth.54

Can one both retain the original zeal and yet address the pressing questions of the day? We will hope that

one can. Having examined three common traits we turn next to three areas of divergence between Judaism and

PC Renewal movement.

POINTS OF DIVERGENT RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS

We will not consider the obvious theological differences between these two religions. We have seen that

there are areas of shared orientation and approach that may help each one understand the other. Since this writer

is a Pentecostal and is addressing others in his tradition, this paper focuses at what the PC Renewal movement

can learn from Judaism. There are three divergent areas with Judaism that we can find some help in our own

conversation with science.

51 Daniel C. Matt, God and the Big Bang: Discovering Harmony Between Science & Spirituality (Woodstock, Vt.: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2001), 13.52 Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series #1 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).53 Rubenstein, “Science and Spirit,” 405.54 See William D. Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series #10 (edited by John Christopher Thomas, Rickie D. Moore, and Stephen J. Land; Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield Press, 1996.

12

Brubaker1. The Role of Tradition – Stating the obvious, Judaism has been around a lot longer than the mere century of

the Renewal movement. Its rabbinical writings are a continuous flow of thoughtful interaction dating from

several centuries B.C.E. to the present. Jewish thought has faced and adapted to new issues before. Science is

just the latest. This gives Judaism “the accumulated momentum of the spiritual quest of the past.”55 As a whole

this produces a certain calming equilibrium in the midst of any contemporary issue.

Robert Pollack’s discussion of the “soul” is an example of the positive role of tradition in Judaism. He

examined the biological and medical aspects of the human body. He considered the study of DNA traits of

Jewish people worldwide. He concluded that the “soul” does not have a religious basis in the individual but

rather in the community of Jewish faith and practice. This communal definition of “personhood” does not

discount the scientific research into the marvelous aspects of genetic research but does go beyond it into the

sociological and religious aspects of Jewish faith. He succinctly summarized his study, “A Jewish soul is a soul

cared for by Jews.”56 Jewish tradition faithfully passed on defines who a Jew is.

While there has been some recognition of the role even in its short history, the PC Renewal movement has

tended to discount the role of tradition.57 Hence, our own history has not always been appreciated. A rugged

individualism has marked its rapid growth as charismatic individuals have propelled its ranks into its current

sizable numbers in North American and the world.58 We would do well to recognize the value of the

contributions of those who have gone before us. The rise of professionally staffed archives of major Pentecostal

denominations give hope that the contribution of early Pentecostals will be preserved and studied to give the

future generations a sense of intellectual trajectory for the present and the future.

2. The Value of a Questioning Dialogue – There are various examples of Jewish humor that illustrate the point

that Judaism is known for open debate and role of questioning, even the questioning of God.59 One writer,

discussing the critique of humans playing the role of God with today’s technology, cited the Midrash to argue

55 Fuchs-Kreimer, “Science and Faith,” 54; see also Moore, “How Religious Tradition Survives in the World of Science,” 116.56 Pollack, “DNA and NESHAMAH,” 244.57 Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “An Emerging Magisterium? The Case of the Assemblies of God,” Pneuma 25.2 (Fall 2003): 164-215. See also Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2003.58 See Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Press, 2001).59 Geoffrey Cantor cites a debate between two 1st century C.E. rabbis, Elazer and Eliezer, who even question God in the process of proving their point, Quakers, Jews, and Science, 317.

13

Brubakerthat dialogue and discussion are necessary in finding truth.60 This should include scientists as well as

theologians and ethicists together. Similarly, Hoffman and Schmidt’s introduction to chemistry made a

comparison between the scientific method of description and analysis with Judaism’s tradition.61 Both employ

question and answer, logic, deduction, and application of new insights.

Shalom Carmy’s article illustrates this Jewish characteristic for dialogue. He asked his readers to be

careful in too quickly condemning a particular young Jewish Orthodox writer who had espoused an acceptance

of contemporary scientific theories. He said that the issues were very important and that was why it is necessary

to hear all sides. Even though he had cautioned against a total absorbed fascination with such matters, he argued

for a fair hearing, “It is precisely because correct belief is essential to Judaism that we must combat the kind of

careless condemnation that has lately come to the surface.”62

3. A Positive Stance Toward Science – Contemporary understandings of these two sources of authority,

religion and science, often collide. As we have noted the PC Renewal movement has been slow to enter this

conversation between faith and science. Judaism, for the most part, regards the role of science as an asset for

human attainment of knowledge and truth. This is in part due to their view of human nature with its reasoning

capacity still intact despite the fall of Adam and Eve. Samuelson, though acknowledging that Judaism can get

mired in the minutia of Torah, stated that it never had an anti-intellectualism that has plagued some religious

traditions.63 Rather, he says that science and religion “function epistemically as correctives for each other.”64

Pollack sees the challenges of science as a prod to a healthy theology and that both religion and science need

each other to avoid a blind dogmatism and ignorance.65 Hence there is no ultimate conflict between the two.

Two writers declared that there was a divine mandate from Genesis for human scientific study. Laurie

Zololf said that science enables us to be an active partner with God in the “repair of the world.”66 Jonathan

60 Efron, “Playing God,” 99.61 Roald Hoffmann and Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, Old Wine New Flasks, 291-92.62 Shalom Carmy, “‘A Religion Challenged by Science’ – Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence,” 6.63 Samuelson, “On the Symbiosis of Science and Religion,” 88. For an appeal for Pentecostals to step-up their intellectuality see Terry L. Cross and Emerson B. Powery (eds.), The Spirit and the Mind: Essays in Informed Pentecostalism (Lanham, Md.: University Press, 2000).64 Samuelson, “On the Symbiosis of Science and Religion,” 86.65 Pollack, The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith, 21. James F. Moore also notes that “this interaction between theology and science…is a dialectical interaction,” “How Religious Tradition Survives in the World of Science,” 117.66 Laurie Zoloth, “Science and Ethics in Judaism: Discernment and Discourse,” in Bridging Science and Religion (edited by Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) 219.

14

BrubakerSachs, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, noted that this Genesis 1 mandate contrasts with the pagan mythology of

the gods angry with Prometheus for stealing the secret of fire.67 The God of the Bible is not opposed but rather

commands humans to pursue scientific research.

Also in Judaism there is recognition of a proper limit to the scope and intent of Scripture. Shalom Carmy

comments that the Torah is not a scientific textbook given to us to answer all modern questions about science.68

Scripture, with a religious agenda, has no claim of teaching laws of natural science or a literal history of

creation.69 So, traditional Jewish writers like Carmy and Pollack do in fact accept modern evolutionary theories

about how God created life. They accept the views of “standard science” as a given in thinking about the world.

To reject it is no longer an option. Rather, they urge the religionist to join the conversation from a vantage point

of accepting its commonly held teachings.70

SUMMARY

The future of the Pentecostal Charismatic Renewal is a promising one in light of present global growth.

Though its North American growth has leveled its churches and institutions have gained strength and maturity.

For it to come of age intellectually it will have to reconcile its religious claims with scientific language, theories,

and world-view. By studying how other religious traditions such as Judaism have dealt with this dialogue the

PC Renewal tradition will be better able to communicate its message with both clarity and conviction.

Scientific knowledge, faith, and aesthetics cohabit. They speak to one another in the human soul – yes, sometimes their dialogue is uneasy. But it is their intertwined voices that shape true human understanding.71

67 Jonathan Sachs, “Technology and Human Dignity,” in Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday (edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr..; Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005), 578.68 Shalom Carmy, “‘A Religion Challenged by Science’ – Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence,” 1.69 Jacob Neusner, “From Biblical Story to the Science of Society,” in Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday (edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr..; Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005), 577.70 Pollack, “DNA and NESHAMAH,”234; Shalom Carmy, “‘A Religion Challenged by Science’ – Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence,” 4.71 Roald Hoffmann and Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, Old Wine New Flasks, x.

15

Brubaker

WORKS CITED

Arieti, James A. and Patrick A. Wilson. The Scientific & The Divine: Conflict and Reconciliation from Ancient Greece to the Present. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003.

Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. Revised and expanded edition of Religion in an Age of Science. New York: Harper Collins, 1997.

Blau, Joseph L. “An American Jewish View of the Evolution Controversy.” Hebrew Union College Annual 20.1 (1947): 617-34. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.

Cantor, Geoffrey. Quakers, Jews, and Science: Religious Responses to Modernity and the Sciences in Britain, 1650-1900. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Carmy, Shalom. “‘A Religion Challenged by Science’ – Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence.” Tradition 39.2 (Summer 2005): 1-6. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.

Efron, Noah J. “Playing God.” In Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday. Edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005.

Fuchs-Kreimer, Nancy. “Science and Spirit: Reconstructionist Theology for the 21st Century.” The Reconstructionist 70.1 (Fall 2005): 46-57. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.

Grossmann, Rabbi Louis. Some Chapters on Judaism and the Science of Religion. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889.

Harper, Charles L., Jr., ed. Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005.

Hoffmann, Rolad and Shira Leibowitz Schmidt. Old Wine New Flasks: Reflections on Science and Judaism. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997.

Isaacs, Moses L. “The Challenge of Science.” Pages 69-84 in Judaism in a Changing World. Edited by Leo Jung. New York: Oxford University Press, 1939.

Kisch, Bruno. “Natural Science in Israel of Tomorrow.” Pages 309-23 in Israel of Tomorrow. Edited by Leo Jung. New York: Herald Square Press, 1946.

Matt, Daniel C. God & The Big Bang: Discovering Harmony Between Science & Spirituality. Woodstock, Vt.: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2001.

Moore, James F. “How Religious Tradition Survives in the World of Science: John Polkinghorne and Norbert Samuelson. 32.1 (March 1997): 115-24. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.

Neusner, Jacob. “From Biblical Story to the Science of Society.” In Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday. Edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr..; Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005.

16

Brubaker

Pollack, Robert. “DNA AND NESHAMAH: Locating the Soul in an Age of Molecular Medicine.” Cross Currents 53.2 (Summer 2003): 231-47. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.

________. The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith: Order, Meaning, and Free Will in Modern Medical Science. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.

Poloma, Margaret. “Pentecostal/Charismatic Worship: A Window for Research.” In Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday. Edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr..; Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005.

Rubenstein, Richard L. “Science and Spirit in Contemporary Jewish Mysticism.” Cross Currents 33.4 (Winter 1983/84): 400-05. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on July 2, 2007.

Sachs, Jonathan. “Technology and Human Dignity.” In Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion. Essays in Honor of Sir John Templeton’s 90th Birthday. Edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr.Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005.

Samuelson, Norbert M. “On the Symbiosis of Science and Religion: A Jewish Perspective.” Zygon 35.1 (March 2000): 83-97. Accessed at http://firstsearch.oclc.org on June 26, 2007.

Ware, Frederick L. “Pentecostal Religious Experience, Cognitive Neuroscience, and the Use of Narrative in the Study of Consciousness.” Unpublished paper for Science & Spirit Initiative Colloquium, Regent University, June 2007.

Yong, Amos. “Christian and Buddhist Perspectives on Neuropsychology and the Human Person: Pneuma and Pratityasamutpada.” Zygon 40.1 (March 2005): 143-65.

Zoloth, Laurie. “Science and Ethics in Judaism: Discernment and Discourse.” Pages 213-19 in Bridging Science and Religion. Edited by Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

17