In recent years we witnessed the rise of a new method, or so we think, namely, science-engaged theology. What I aim to show in this short paper is, first, that this method has solid theological antecedents within the ancient Christian tradition and that, therefore, it is not so new, and second, that in its hermeneutical dimension it proves to be an important way of deepening our grasp of familiar things—such as the theology of creation and theological anthropology—as well as useful channel for communicating theological ideas to audiences whose worldview is grounded in the contemporary scientific culture. [1] I will discuss what science-engaged theology is and is not, and I will give examples of how this approach was and can be implemented.
Before anything, however, I must clarify my reasons for considering this a return to known patterns, rather than a new method. In short, this theological way of engaging the sciences, which scholars describe in various ways, [2] echoes approaches established long ago. [3] Indeed, many early Christian and medieval thinkers used relevant approaches. They engaged the available “natural philosophy” of the ancients, as science was then known, primarily for missional, pastoral, and polemical purposes, but also out of sheer interest in nature. Theirs was not the scientific culture of our days, of course, but their achievements are no less important, methodologically speaking. In short, the noteworthy outcome of their efforts was a theological interpretation of reality as described by the available sciences. That those sciences are out of date is of no consequence. But what is, more precisely, science-engaged theology?
But it is not theology of the usual sort either; at least not of the systematic, or dogmatic, kind. Nor does it overlap with “natural theology” (as the speculative undertaking of proving God on rational, not faith, grounds) and modern “apologetic” (as the superficial and sometimes vulgar undertaking of “defending” faith against its “enemies”). Furthermore, science-engaged theology does neither agree nor disagree with the sciences. Its task is to inform theology about influential scientific ideas and to interpret them theologically—for the benefit of believers in need of guidance about living in this world, not another, and of unbelievers in need of cogent, understandable articulations of the Christian faith. As such, from a methodological viewpoint, science-engaged theology aligns to the current interdisciplinary trend in religious studies, operating complexly, at the nexus of diverse perspectives and disciplines. [8] Also, it operates hermeneutically, after the manner of the philosophy of science [9] —or what Andrew Davison calls “thinking with science” or “to think about what science thinks about.” [10] In saying this, I do not wish to reduce theology to hermeneutics; I am merely referring to one of its functions, of relevance here.
To be more specific, its distinctiveness within contemporary theology derives from the fact of including scientific data and theories about nature among the objects of investigation, not only the Wesleyan quadrilateral of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. [11] John Wesley himself saw nature and the natural sciences worth considering theologically. [12] A couple of chapters in a very influential handbook of Christian theology by Alister McGrath anticipate this broadening of scope since almost three decades now, [13] in so doing paving the way for the recent relaunch of science-engaged theology. But this is where things might get problematic for certain theologians. Doesn’t this broadening of scope corrupt theology’s traditional ways?
I don’t think so. The broadening of theology’s purview by incorporating scientific information does not alter either its nature or its objectives. From a certain angle, this is so given that, as Carmody Grey notes, the Christian theological discourse and the religious traditions of the world have been incorporating scientific assumptions throughout history. [14] Just think of the oldest recorded observations of celestial rhythms, during what we call prehistory, which were instrumental towards organising both everyday life and religious worldviews and rhythms. We still hold Easter soon after the Southern hemisphere’s autumn equinox and Christmas right after the summer solstice… This is not new knowledge. The nineteenth-century influential thinker John Henry Newman mentioned the “bearing of other branches of knowledge on theology,” [15] and urged his contemporary theologians to engage the sciences and cultural trends in order to understand theology better. But this is not all there is to it. A series of theological ideas, in turn, were absorbed by ancient and modern scientists, more or less instinctively, and continue to function as axioms of the scientific method. [16] The most common case is the concept of natural laws—observes Paul Davies—of unquestionable scriptural and theological origin. [17] This concept is present under various guises in early Christian theologians such as Clement of Alexandria in the second century and the Cappadocian theologians of the fourth century, down to medieval scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. [18] But the impact of theology and related areas upon the broader culture of our age, including its scientific side, occurs continuously. Lisa Sideris shows that the idea of the Anthropocene as the geological era characterised by human activities is “beholden to older philosophical trends, some of which bear the imprint of theological commitments, or blur the lines between the religious and the secular.” [19] No wonder the presence in contemporary discourses of “quasi-religious conceptions of the Earth and humanity’s role within it,” such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s “Noosphere” and James Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis.” [20] In his own time, Newman called this aspect of the exchange the “bearing of theology on other branches of knowledge.” [21]
In this light, science and theology began to cross paths many centuries ago and continue to do so in complex ways, each being present within the other’s assumptions, whether we like it or not. It is their intersection that makes possible (and legitimate) science-engaged theology and its hoped-for mirror phenomenon, theology-engaged science. On a certain level, the same intersection explains why to engage scientific information does not alter the nature of theology. What matters at this stage, however, and according to Perry and Leidenhag, is that the presence of scientific data into the theological discourse is why “scientific findings, no less than doctrinal expression, both presume and require interpretation” [22] from a theological vantage point. Hence the task of science-engaged theology to assimilate current scientific ideas by interpreting them—as Christian thinkers did from the very beginning and for many centuries. I hope that the ensuing examples will make this clear.
I begin with three scriptural examples of engagement of foreign worldviews and natural philosophy.
Noteworthy, first, is the single occurrence of the word Logos in relation to Christ’s identity as creator of the universe, in John 1:1. Here, the word Logos has the full weight it had decades earlier, in Philo of Alexandria’s Middle Platonic cosmology, as a mediating agent between God and the creation. But in John the concept shows clear signs of reinterpretation, [23] whereby Philo’s subordinationism is expurgated and replaced by a consubstantialist view. Relevant for my purposes is that John does not bother either to discuss or to justify the integration of a known philosophical term into such a consequential theological narrative. He deploys it as a familiar cultural trope, to reach out to audiences that were aware of this concept—and does so from the vantage point of different theological assumptions. Second, related, in Colossians 1:15–18, Paul undertakes to map the invisible world after the Second Temple angelology of thrones, dominions, rulers, and powers, extraneous to the cosmology of Genesis, Job, or the Psalms. Of course, Second Temple angelology does not fit the bill of Hellenistic natural philosophy but—from a non-Eurocentric perspective—this worldview, whose origin was Babylonian cosmology, fulfilled a similar function within other, Semitic cultures. Either way, like John, Paul does not feel the need to explain this novelty and deploys it as a cultural reference known to his readers. Again like John, he does so by reinterpreting Second Temple angelology in the light of Christ understood as “head” (κεφαλή) of the ecclesial body and “principle” (ἀρχή) of the creation. [24] Third, in Colossians 2:8 Paul refers to “the fundamental elements (στοιχεῖα) of the cosmos,” the term στοιχεῖα, central to the physics of four elements, being borrowed from pre-Socratic cosmology. Again, Paul does not attempt to legitimise the use of yet another familiar trope; and even though he deploys it within a problematic context, what matters is that he expects his readers to understand the scientific reference. [25] These examples corroborate my claims that science-engaged theology is as old as Christian theology, and that within our tradition it operates hermeneutically. In short, by borrowing from current scientific paradigms, it communicates the theology of creation in ways that secure its effective dissemination. And it does so without risking to jeopardise the nature and the objectives of the theological discourse.
Given the examples considered above, no wonder many early Christian and medieval authors followed suit, presenting Christian ideas under the guise of reinterpreted cultural, sometimes scientific, references. I have been discussing this topic since more than twenty years now, with the most detailed account of my understanding being found, alongside the publications listed in the first notes above, in my monograph Humankind and the Cosmos: Early Christian Representations. There, I address topics of theology and natural philosophy, including the Christian contemplation of nature, from the early second to the early fifth century. [26] In turn, the little book I published with Geraint Lewis, A New Copernican Turn, discusses both early Christian and later contributions, including modern, emphasising the interdisciplinary nature of the method. [27]
To substantiate my proposal regarding the continuous employment and the usefulness of science-engaged theology as a form of cultural contextualisation of theological ideas through engaging the sciences, I shall give patristic and neopatristic examples. (The neopatristic movement was a trend in modern Orthodox theology, somewhat similar to the Catholic ressourcement, which aimed to revitalise theology and the Christian ethos by learning past lessons that can inform contemporary ways of thinking and doing).
Thus, in the second half of the fourth century, Basil of Caesarea highlighted the inconsistencies of Hellenistic natural philosophers, which were caused, he asserted, by theological ignorance. [28] In the light of our earlier discussion about scientific worldviews incorporating theological concepts, his point seems justified and not merely an ideological infringement of the sciences. However, Basil’s was not an “apologetic” approach and did not amount to a wholesale refutation of scientific ideas. For example, he adopted the Ptolemaic cosmography of concentric spheres as a cultural given and presented the theology of creation in conversation with that system of the world. As with Paul’s Second Temple angelology of Babylonian origin, geocentric cosmography is not scriptural. Its integration into the Christian representation of reality amounts to an exercise of science-engaged theology. Interestingly, awareness of the changing and sometimes contradictory scientific ideas prevented Basil from deciding on the number of celestial spheres; tentatively, he mentioned the existence of three to seven such spheres. [29] His complex approach amounts to theology embracing scientific ideas, on the one hand, and maintaining independence from borrowed items, on the other hand. It also requires the rejection of ideological assumptions embedded in the sciences. [30] Therefore, critical thinking is of the essence for science-engaged theology. Modern Orthodox theologians have not missed these nuances. [31]
Let me unpack this lesson first. Basil took for granted Ptolemaic cosmography in order to render the theological discourse intelligible for his readers. Even where he criticised the natural philosophers openly, he did so on theological, not scientific grounds—namely, for hypothesising about nature and the universe in ignorance of God. Clearly, this is not the same with becoming a scientist himself. Basil’s main task was to interpret the available information through a theological lens, so much so that his cosmology and ontology, notwithstanding their cultural and scientific contextualisation, are theocentric. Typical of the theocentric perspective is his decoding of the Genesis 1 commandment to the land to engender plant life, which he took in the sense of a divine energy that boosted the natural generative potential of the earth. [32] Similar to the Hebrew mind, ancient natural philosophy emphasised nature’s fertility, and Basil agreed to it, but pointed out that this fecund potential is divinely given and supported, energetically so. [33] This complex solution determined Christos Yannaras (d. 2024) to conclude that in patristic representations of reality “the matter itself of the world is an event dynamically effected.” [34] In short, Basil took Ptolemy’s spheres and the idea of nature’s generative potential as scientific givens, incorporating them into his theology of creation.
Many Christian authors, from Clement of Alexandria to John of Damascus, adopted similar stances. [35] But let me turn briefly to a couple of neopatristic examples, relevant to my own theological tradition. Thus, drawing on early Christian and medieval theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor, Dumitru Stăniloae (d. 1993) articulated the patristic views of creation in conversation with contemporary chemistry, physics, and cosmology, producing a complex theological worldview where relativity, the universe’s expansion, and quantum physics consistently appear as a cultural backdrop that does not require explanation. [36] No wonder he urged his colleagues to overcome scientific apathy and to formulate “a theology of the world” that “reconciles the cosmic vision of the Fathers with a vision which grows out … of the natural sciences.” [37] In the same vein, he pointed out furthermore the need of a “theology of movement” or a “theological explanation” of the universe in expansion. [38] Stăniloae was thinking of science-engaged theology already in the 1970s, when he wrote his three-volume synthesis of theology. And, dare I say, his method does not differ at all from the scriptural strategies discussed above.
In turn, Panayiotis Nellas (d. 1986) developed theological anthropology in the framework of evolutionary biology, namely, by incorporating basic scientific information into his “iconic” or theological anthropology. [39] One of his approaches was analogical. Specifically, he drew a line between the icon’s material and religious dimensions, showing that, while the material object can be studied by various disciplines (from art history to chemistry to aesthetics), its assessment as a religious item falls in the purview of theology, which decodes its meaning. Similarly, he continued, theological anthropology does not confuse human nature, whose analysis is the province of science (including evolutionary biology, psychology, and sociology), and “the-fact-of-being-in-the-image,” which requires theological, spiritual, and ethical expertise. [40] Nellas respected the boundaries of disciplines and made clear that the various perspectives—from biology and genetics to psychology and sociology to theology and spirituality—are competent in their specific ways of examining human nature. But his approach is not only about establishing the area of competence of each field; it shows that a comprehensive grasp of the examined objects requires the humble acknowledgement of the various disciplines that none of them can offer by itself the complete description of reality.
By establishing rigorous disciplinary boundaries and inviting a humble approach to the objects of investigation through the lens of various disciplinary perspectives—ranging from the natural sciences to the humanities, including theology—Nellas’ approach constitutes an exercise in science-engaged theology. His view of the human phenomenon unfolds on several levels that do not exclude each other and indeed complement one another, facilitating a deeper understanding of our nature. Here, theological anthropology interprets the human being as described by various disciplines and without needing to circumvent sound information, but doing so in accordance with its own criteria. The same goes for the neopatristic proposal more broadly, whose lessons, corresponding to the early Christian and medieval theology, can be replicated for various audiences, academic and popular alike. No wonder the traditional method of taking the scientific culture of the day for granted and interpreting it theologically proved time and again its effectiveness in facilitating, first, the access of Christian communities to scientific information, and second, the access of scientifically conditioned audiences to the Christian worldview.
To perform the same ministry as admirably as that, taking their cue from their ancient and medieval predecessors, contemporary theologians will have to reappropriate forgotten skills and to develop an appreciation for the sciences. To that end, they have allies among the scientists who appreciate theology, who have already begun to integrate scientific information into the theological discourse and to interpret this information theologically. While many examples are at hand, here I shall just mention two contributors from the Orthodox tradition, Christopher Knight (astrophysicist turned theologian) [41] and Alexei Nesteruk (physicist turned Christian philosopher), [42] and one from the Anglican tradition, my dear friend Graeme Finlay (cell biologist and theologian). [43] Graeme’s latest four articles in the ISCAST journal, Christian Perspectives on Science and Technology, [44] and the poem which features as the appendix of the fourth article, “A Freed Man’s Worship,” are perfect illustrations of science-engaged theology. [45] Good ground was recently covered by the SCD’s Theology Research Network’s series of seminars “Religiously Human in a Techno-Scientific World,” organised together with ISCAST, [46] and the “Faith & Science” stream of the ANZATS 2023 conference. [47] The prospects are promising. “The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest” (Luke 10:2). Are you one of them? 🙂
Acknowledgment Paper presented for the research seminar of the Sydney College of Divinity’s Graduate Research School, on 10 September 2024.
Notes:
[1] This paper draws heavily, but not exclusively, on the following sources: Doru Costache and Geraint F. Lewis, A New Copernican Turn: Contemporary Cosmology, the Self, and Orthodox Science-Engaged Theology, Routledge Focus on Religion (London and New York: Routledge, 2024), 1–18; Richard de Grijs and Doru Costache, “The Cosmology of David Bohm: Scientific and Theological Significance,” Theology and Science 22:1 (2024): 204–220, esp. 210–216, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2023.2294529; Doru Costache, “Communicating Theologically Interpreted Scientific Information to Christian Congregations: Patristic and Neopatristic Lessons,” 2 July 2024, https://aiocs.net/communicating-theologically-interpreted-scientific-information-to-christian-congregations-patristic-and-neopatristic-lessons/; Doru Costache, “Bridging Faith and Science Contemplatively: An Early Christian Model,” 15 April 2024, https://aiocs.net/bridging-faith-and-science-contemplatively-an-early-christian-model/; Doru Costache, “Patristic and Neopatristic Antecedents of Scientifically Engaged Theology,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 67:1–2 (2023): 115–145.
[2] See Andrew Davison, “Science and Specificity: Interdisciplinary Teaching between Theology, Religion, and the Natural Sciences,” Zygon 57, no. 1 (2022): 233–243; John Perry and Joanna Leidenhag, Science-Engaged Theology, Cambridge Elements: Elements of Christianity and Science (Cambridge University Press, 2023); John Perry and Joanna Leidenhag, “What Is Science-Engaged Theology?” Modern Theology 37, no. 2 (2021): 245–253.
[3] For analyses of these trailblazing contributions, see Doru Costache, “Transitions in Patristic Cosmology: From Cosmophobia to Universe-(Re)Making,” Religions 15:6 (2024): 728, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15060728; Doru Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos: Early Christian Representations, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 170 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2021), 52–58, 120–135, 161–167, 223–241, 292–297, 309–326; Bruce V. Foltz, The Noetics of Nature: Environmental Philosophy and the Holy Beauty of the Visible (New York: Fordham University Press, 2014); Wayne Hankey, “Natural Theology in the Patristic Period,” in The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, ed. Russell Re Manning (Oxford University Press, 2013), 38–56; Peter Harrison, “A Historian’s Perspective on Science-Engaged Theology,” Modern Theology 37, no. 2 (2021): 476–482; Stavros Lazaris (ed.), A Companion to Byzantine Science, Brill Companions to the Byzantine World 6 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020); David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450, 2nd edn (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2007), 148–150; Efthymios Nicolaidis, Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: From the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization, trans. Susan Emanuel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011), 1–39; D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, The Greek Patristic View of Nature (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press and Barns & Noble, 1968).
[4] Ian Barbour’s Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966).
[5] Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2015).
[6] Perry and Leidenhag, Science-Engaged Theology, 7–9, 19–20.
[7] Peter Harrison, John Milbank, and Paul Tyson (eds.), After Science and Religion: Fresh Perspectives from Philosophy and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2022). See Paul Tyson’s “Introduction” to After Science and Religion, 1–11, esp. 2–6.
[8] See Brent Smith, Religious Studies and the Goal of Interdisciplinarity, Routledge Focus (London and New York: Routledge, 2020), 1–18.
[9] See Loretta Koertge, “Philosophy of the Social Sciences,” in The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia, ed. Sahotra Sarkar and Jessica Pfeifer (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), 780–785, esp. 782; Hans Radder, “Experiment,” in The Philosophy of Science, 268–275, esp. 274.
[10] Davison, “Science and Specificity,” 236–37.
[11] Perry and Leidenhag, Science-Engaged Theology, 48–62; Perry and Leidenhag, “What Is Science-Engaged Theology?” 248.
[12] See Daniel Pratt Morris-Chapman, “Beyond the Quadrilateral: The Place of Nature in John Wesley’s Epistemology of Theology,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 78, no. 2 (2022): 1–8, https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i2.7643; Glen O’Brien, “‘Creatures Capable of God’: John Wesley’s Theological Anthropology and the Posthuman Future,” in A Curious Machine: Wesleyan Reflections on the Posthuman Future, ed. Arseny Ermakov and Glen O’Brien (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2023), 13–32, esp. 14–15.
[13] See Alistair McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, sixth edition (Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 104–151.
[14] Carmody Grey, “A Theologian’s Perspective on Science-Engaged Theology,” Modern Theology 37, no. 2 (2021): 489–494, esp. 493–494. See also Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion, 21–54.
[15] Cardinal John Henry Newman, On the Scope and Nature of University Education, Everyman’s Library 723 (London and New York: Dent and Dutton, 1965), 55–79.
[16] See Michael Hanby, “Questioning the Science and Religion Question,” in After Science and Religion, 155–170, esp. 163–164.
[17] See Paul Davies, The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 73–78.
[18] See David C. Lindberg, “Early Christian Attitudes toward Science” and “Medieval Science and Religion,” in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, ed. Gary B. Ferngren (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 47–56, 57–72; David B. Wilson, “The Historiography of Science and Religion,” in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia, ed. Gary B. Ferngren, Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1833 (New York and London: Garland, 2000), 2–11, esp. 6.
[19] Lisa H. Sideris, “Religion,” in Handbook of the Anthropocene: Humans between Heritage and Future, ed. Nathanaël Wallenhorst and Christoph Wulf (Cham: Springer, 2024), 905–910, esp. 905, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25910-4_148.
[20] Sideris, “Religion,” 906–908.
[21] Newman, Scope and Nature, 30–54.
[22] Perry and Leidenhag, “What Is Science-Engaged Theology?” 248.
[23] See Peder Borgen, The Gospel of John: More Light from Philo, Paul and Archaeology, Supplements to Ovum Testamentum 154 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014), 43–45, 63–64, 88–92; Sean M. McDonough, Christ as Creator: Origins of a New Testament Doctrine (Oxford University Press, 2009), 148–149.
[24] Colossians 1:18. See Ronald Cox, By the Same Word: Creation and Salvation in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2007), 163–192; McDonough, Christ as Creator, 172–188.
[25] See Tim Hegedus, Early Christianity and Ancient Astrology, Patristic Studies 6 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 224–226.
[26] Summaries of my argument can be found, for example, in Costache and Lewis, A New Copernican Turn, 44–54, 82–87; Costache, “The Cosmology of David Bohm,” 210–216. In both cases, the argument is further substantiated by evidence from later authors, too.
[27] See Costache and Lewis, A New Copernican Turn, 87–94.
[28] See Homilies on the Hexaemeron 1.2.
[29] See Homilies on the Hexaemeron 1.3–4; 3.3.
[30] See Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos, 223–241.
[31] See Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 104–106; John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), 134.
[32] See Homilies on the Hexaemeron 5.2 (and 8.1, for the sixth day); cf. Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos, 243–248.
[33] See Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 133.
[34] Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith Schram (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 46–47.
[35] See the examples discussed in Costache, Humankind and the Cosmos, 82–94, 115–128; Doru Costache, “Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene’s Cosmology,” in The T&T Clark Handbook of Christian Theology and the Modern Sciences, ed. John Slattery (Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2020), 81–91; Doru Costache, “Christian Gnosis: From Clement the Alexandrian to John Damascene,” in The Gnostic World, ed. Garry W. Trompf et al., Routledge Worlds (London and New York: Routledge, 2019), 259–270.
[36] See Doru Costache, “A Theology of the World: Dumitru Stăniloae, the Traditional Worldview, and Contemporary Cosmology,” in Orthodox Christianity and Modern Science: Tensions, Ambiguities, Potential, ed. Vasilios N. Makrides and Gayle Woloschak, Science and Orthodox Christianity 1 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2019), 205–222.
[37] Dumitru Stăniloae, Theology and the Church, trans. Robert Barringer (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), 224.
[38] Dumitru Stăniloae, “Introducere,” in Sfântul Atanasie cel Mare: Scrieri, first part, ed. Dumitru Stăniloae, Părinţi şi Scriitori Bisericeşti 15 (București: Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1987), 5–26, esp. 24 (my translation).
[39] See Doru Costache, “Theological Anthropology Today: Panayiotis Nellas’s Contribution,” in Orthodox Christianity and Modern Science: Past, Present and Future, ed. Kostas Tampakis and Haralampos Ventis, Science and Orthodox Christianity 3 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2022), 167–182
[40] Παναγιώτη Νέλλα Ζῶον θεούμενον: Προοπτικὲς γιὰ μιὰ ὀρθόδοξη κατανόηση τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Ἀθήνα: Ἐκδόσεις Ἁρμός, 2000; original edn 1979), 44.
[41] Christopher C. Knight, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Science-Theology Dialogue, Cambridge Elements: Elements of Christianity and Science (Cambridge University Press, 2022); Science and the Christian Faith: A Guide for the Perplexed, Foundations (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2021); The God of Nature: Incarnation and Contemporary Science, Theology and the Sciences (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2007).
[42] Alexei V. Nesteruk: The Universe in the Image of Imago Dei: The Dialogue between Theology and Science as a Hermeneutics of the Human Condition (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2022); The Sense of the Universe: Philosophical Explication of Theological Commitment in Modern Cosmology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015); The Universe as Communion: Towards a Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Theology and Science (London: T&T Clark, 2008); Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Orthodox Christian Tradition, Theology and the Sciences (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003)
[43] Graeme Finlay: God’s Gift of Science (Wipf and Stock, 2022); Evolution and Eschatology (Wipf and Stock, 2021); The Gospel According to Dawkins (Austin-Macauley, 2017); Human Evolution (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
[44] For quick access (gratis), Graeme Finlay: https://doi.org/10.58913/DWMP7862; https://doi.org/10.58913/ITKP5178; https://doi.org/10.58913/RDDN1562; https://doi.org/10.58913/JJHH2131.
[45] See details and video recorded conversations around this poem at https://aiocs.net/aiocs-conversations-26-33-graeme-finlays-a-freed-mans-worship-parts-1-8/.
[46] See https://tinyurl.com/9eh7jzk2.
[47] See https://tinyurl.com/4cepharm.
11 September 2024 © AIOCS
Please support our not-for-profit ministry (ABN 76649025141)
For donations, please go to https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/aiocsnet or contact us at info@aiocs.net
