Who’s Afraid of the Unmoved Mover?: The Failure of Postmodern Evangelical Rejections of Natural Theology by Andrew Isaac Shepardson A Doctoral Thesis suBmitted to the Faculty of Trinity College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies awarded By Trinity College and the University of Toronto. © Copyright By Andrew Isaac Shepardson 2018 Who’s Afraid of the Unmoved Mover?: The Failure of Postmodern Evangelical Rejections of Natural Theology Andrew Isaac Shepardson Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies Trinity College and the University of Toronto 2018 Abstract In terms of Christian theology, natural theology is understood as that branch of human inquiry which seeks to discover knowledge about the existence and nature of God apart from sources of revealed theology (i.e. the Bible, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and various forms of prophecy). Knowledge of this kind is based on the validity or suggestive power of arguments made from observations of the natural world, human experience, and necessary truths. Various argument forms are employed including deduction, induction, and inferences to the best explanation. Closely related to natural theology is the practice of positive apologetics, where the arguments of natural theology and other aspects of Christian theology are defended rationally, with the claim, either explicit or implicit, that the doctrines and practices of Christianity correspond to reality, are internally consistent, and are existentially viable. The Evangelical philosophers James K. A. Smith, Myron B. Penner, and Carl A. Raschke claim that most forms of natural theology are dependent on modern conceptions of reason, truth, and language. Marshalling postmodernism’s critiques of foundationalist epistemology, the correspondence theory of truth, and referential semiotics, these authors argue that Evangelicals should reject natural theology. Appeals to common ground in nature to demonstrate or infer the ii existence of God will fail because these appeals are beholden to modernity’s outmoded grounds for knowledge. Moreover, because of their dependence on modernism, natural theology and apologetics are often hindrances to authentic Christian faith. According to these authors, notions like objectivity, neutrality, and rationality are various forms of idolatry, and any philosophical dependence on knowledge informed by these values will be a kind of idolatry. I ask this key question: Do these postmodern Evangelical philosophers provide sound objections to natural theology? I explicate the objections to natural theology made by Carl A. Raschke, James K. A. Smith, and Myron B. Penner and show that their objections fail by employing primarily analytic philosophical strategies and, on occasion, biblical and systematic theology regarding the issues of truth, rationality, general revelation, and evangelism. iii Acknowledgments I owe a substantial debt of thanks to the many teachers and professors who encouraged my academic pursuits over the years. I appreciate especially Jerry Rouse, Linda Iovino, John Kane, Fr. James Guyer, S. J., Thomas Leininger, Daniel Clayton, Rev. David Holman, Rev. Alan Eastland, Rev. Peter Henderson, and Elodie Emig. Donald Wiebe has been a constant champion for my work and has loyally challenged and encouraged me to be a better thinker and a clearer writer. Douglas Groothuis has provided excellent counsel and encouragement on my academic work, and his mentorship and friendship has graciously extended far beyond my studies, as well. Special gratitude is owed to my parents, who have instilled in me a love for God and for learning. Their faith in me has been unflinching, and their encouragement has been abundant. My precious wife, Kelsey Walsh Shepardson, has been the greatest supporter of my dreams, and in addition to editing my written work, has lovingly helped me to become a better man. iv Contents Chapter 1: Elucidation of the Problem and Definitions .......................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Presuppositions ........................................................................................................ 3 Method..................................................................................................................... 3 Definitions. .............................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2: ‘Evangelical’ Natural Theologies and Postmodern Philosophy and Theology .. 13 ‘Evangelical’ Natural Theologies ........................................................................... 13 Postmodern Philosophy .......................................................................................... 56 Postmodern Theology. ........................................................................................... 69 Chapter 3: Postmodern Evangelical Rejections of Natural Theology (Part 1) ..................... 83 The Rejection of Universal Reason ........................................................................ 83 Truth, Propositionalism, and Foundationalism ........................................................ 95 Chapter 4: Postmodern Evangelical Rejections of Natural Theology (Part 2) ................... 111 The God (or god) of Natural Theology ................................................................. 111 The Nature of Faith .............................................................................................. 128 Revelation. ........................................................................................................... 143 The Ethics of Apologetics. ................................................................................... 152 Chapter 5: Natural Theology After the Postmodern Critique: A Proposal....................... 162 Apologists for Truth ............................................................................................. 162 Humility, Confidence, and Natural Theology ....................................................... 169 Advocates for Science. ......................................................................................... 173 A Proposal for Evangelical Colleges and Seminaries. ........................................... 177 Conclusion. .......................................................................................................... 180 v Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 181 vi Chapter 1 Elucidation of the ProBlem and Definitions 1 Introduction In terms of Christian theology, natural theology is understood as that branch of human inquiry which seeks to discover knowledge about the existence and nature of God apart from sources of revealed theology (i.e. the Bible, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and various forms of prophecy). Knowledge of this kind is based on the validity or suggestive power of arguments made from observations of the natural world, human experience, and necessary truths. Various argument forms are employed including deduction, induction, and inferences to the best explanation. Closely related to natural theology is the practice of positive apologetics, where the arguments of natural theology and other aspects of Christian theology are defended rationally, with the claim, either explicit or implicit, that the doctrines and practices of Christianity correspond to reality, are internally consistent, and are existentially viable.1 The Evangelical philosophers James K. A. Smith, Myron B. Penner, and Carl A. Raschke claim that most forms of natural theology are dependent on modern conceptions of reason, truth, and language. Marshalling postmodernism’s critiques of foundationalist epistemology, the correspondence theory of truth, and referential semiotics, these authors argue that Evangelicals should reject natural theology. Appeals to common ground in nature to demonstrate or infer the existence of God will fail because these appeals are beholden to modernity’s outmoded grounds for knowledge. Moreover, because of their dependence on modernism, natural theology and apologetics are often hindrances to authentic Christian faith. According to these authors, notions like objectivity, neutrality, and rationality are various forms of idolatry, and any philosophical dependence on knowledge informed by these values will be a kind of idolatry. 1 Many Christians employ apologetics as an internal discipleship strategy to increase confidence and to assuage doubts of those in the Christian community; however, positive apologetics also forms a part of some evangelistic strategies aimed toward those not in the community of faith. The latter, and not the former, is within the scope of this work. 1 2 I ask this key question: Do these postmodern Evangelical philosophers provide sound objections to natural theology? I will explicate the objections to natural theology made by Carl A. Raschke, James K. A. Smith, and Myron B. Penner and show that their objections fail by employing primarily analytic philosophical strategies and on occasion, biblical and systematic theology regarding the issues of truth, rationality, general revelation, and evangelism. Postmodern Evangelical voices have been ascendant in theology and