In this second volume, Torrance and McCall have collected 16 articles exploring the implications for science and theology regarding Christ’s incarnation and role as creator and sustainer of the universe (Col 1:15-17). As in the first volume, the text lacks a unified theology. However, for scientists, theologians, philosophers, and researchers interested in tackling ideas of science and faith as they intersect in the person and work of Jesus, this text would be a worthy place to begin. For if you are not interested in the focus of one article, simply turn a few pages and an entirely different focus will be explicated in the next.

The book opens with a splendid, and dare I say, must-read introduction by the editors, where they set the table for the articles that follow. The articles are organized into four sections, theological perspectives, biblical and historical perspectives, philosophical perspectives and scientific perspectives. This organization is helpful in relating to the reader what the writer’s point of view is. Nevertheless, in each case, authors bring, to varying degrees and intensities, their Christian faith into the discussion. In other words, the authors are not disinterested and objective writers but are those writing from a faith position. I have spotlighted a handful of publications to help readers in getting a sense of the diversity of topics and will end with some summary observations.

Murray Rae’s article, “Jesus Christ, the Order of Creation”, opens the Theological Perspectives section by arguing that science’s understanding of reality and the explanation given by Scripture (Col 1:15-17; 1 Cor 8:6, etc.) can be reconciled by recognizing that explanation for phenomena can occur at differing levels. He uses the music of Chopin to illustrate how science can explain a song by looking at the notes, and theology explains by looking at the score. As valuable as this heuristic is, Rae recognizes that we must also consider the impact that sin has fractured our world so that the score is in a sense broken. Nevertheless, God has left enough of the score intact to let us see the beauty and a glimmer of the ultimate purpose.

Brian Brock’s “Jesus Christ the Divine Animal?: The Human Distinctive Reconsidered” responds to Darwin’s denial that humans are qualitatively different from animals by reframing the issue. Brock contends that looking for something intrinsically different in humans when compared to animals, is a dead end. Rather, we should look extrinsically, namely to our relationship with God. From this perspective, Brock believes that evolution and a high view of scripture (i.e. Genesis story) may be reconciled while avoiding ensnarement with other problems such as the presence of evil. Brock’s idea here is an interesting rephrasing of the functional view of human identity (Gen 1:28).

The problem of evil is addressed in Brian Curry’s “Christ, Creation and the Powers: Elements in a Christian Doctrine of Creation.” Curry contends that the typical binary discussion of God and creation fails to account for the biblical testimony, which includes a third element, the evil powers. The presence of evil powers is necessary because scripture says that God is not satisfied with creation. God continues to work towards redemption and fights the powers to achieve those ends. Curry provocatively says that science can be a power that both enslaves and benefits its users. Readers will be stimulated by Curry’s forceful discussion, but some may be put off by the apparent leaning toward open theism.

Charismatic historian William De Arteaga introduces us to The Order of St. Luke, where it came from, how it has influenced charismatic leaders for generations, and reports on the most recent international convention held in Orlando, Florida.

The Order of St Luke was founded by The Rev. John Gayer Banks in the 1930’s, an Episcopal priest residing in California. His intention was to introduce healing prayer into the Episcopal and the mainline churches in the United States. By the 1950s the OSL became a leading and important anti-cessationist group proclaiming a prophetic message among the Protestant churches in North America: the Church’s healing ministry must be reclaimed. Ultimately, the OSL also became a solidly charismatic bastion, sharing in many areas of the world the message that the healing ministry reaches its fullness in conjunction with the gifts of the Spirit. The latter transition was not and easy one, as will be described below.

Dearmer’s labors in reestablishing healing prayer in the Church was partly in response to the vast inroads that Christian Science and the other Metaphysical cults were making during the 1900s in attracting orthodox Christians to their churches. The Rev. Dearmer rightly understood that the root problem was that the orthodox Christian churches no longer believed or practiced healing prayer – i.e. cessationism.[2]

The Rev. Percy Dearmer

Dearmer and two other Anglican churchmen banded together to remedy the situation. This was done through a new organization, The Guild of Health, which was attached to the Anglican Church. (Anglican love doing their ministry through “guilds,” it grounds the group to the Anglican Church and its Episcopal oversight and besides sounds genteel.) The guild spread throughout the UK, sponsoring and organizing lectures and “missions” of three day teachings ending in a church service and the laying on of hands at the altar rail.

John Ganer Banks was born in England but later emigrated to America to get his doctorate in religious studies, and went on to be ordained an Episcopal priest. He determined to do the same for the Episcopal Church in America as the Rev Dearmer did in the UK. From his base at St. Luke’s Church in San Diego, he and his wife Ethel began healing services at his parish, and did healing missions wherever he was invited. While he pastored the parish, Ethel administered the OSL and wrote most of its literature. She began a mimeographed journal of healing testimonies and book reviews. The mailing list for this two page newsletter steadily grew to reach every part of the nation. Within two years it morphed into a more sophisticated printed journal with the name “Sharing.” It continues to this day as the official journal of the OSL.

He was young in the Lord; rash and impulsive. He was also a born communicator, and immediately went out preaching and teaching, unencumbered by such banalities as sound doctrine and scriptural truth. That was where I was supposed to come in. When I mentioned in the company of other believers that I had to teach that boy sound theology I was surprised to hear what I now know is a common response: “make sure you don’t put out his fire for God!” Most will not come out and say it, but the sentiment is clearly felt: theology is dangerous.

Welcome to the Pentecostal/charismatic movement.

I am not sure where this fear of theology was birthed, but without a doubt it is with us. Though this does not reflect the attitude of the entire Pentecostal/charismatic movement, its influence is felt throughout. Few things are more shaky than a Christian movement that fails to emphasize the very structure that would preserve it: sound doctrine.

Thus, I was encouraged when I saw that Ministries Today had begun the Ministries Today Institute which describes itself as “A continuing Education Course to Equip Church Leaders”.  However, I was discouraged when I saw the May/June 2001 issue. The Institute teaching was titled “Healthy Church Apostles”. The subtitle read, “Every local church should have a healthy apostolic covering in order to be effective beyond its four walls.” The article goes into detail about how apostles are to be used in the local church. It was very specific, and reflected heavily the teaching of C. Peter Wagner.

Ministries Today has as its subscribers a large number of Pentecostal/charismatic leaders from many different doctrinal backgrounds. This movement is distinctive in its broad denominational following, as we are bound together by our common desire to see the contemporary work of the Spirit. As I read I kept thinking doesn’t MT realize the diversity of the movement?

This was not merely an article, but a teaching endorsed by Ministries Today. I have no desire to discuss the validity of the teaching set forth in the article. Rather, I question the wisdom of MT putting its name behind what is clearly a disputable doctrine. The alienation that can result from this is apparent in the opening paragraph. Note the unqualified statements:

We are in a subtle shift of Church leadership, which is going on around the world. The shift is in the way leaders think of ministry, view ministry, and function in ministry. C. Peter Wagner has carefully studied this change and has called it the New Apostolic Reformation. Because of this shift, if you’re conducting church the same way you were 10 years ago, you are already caught up in yesterday’s movement, and may be stuck in a religious system.

This would be acceptable in an article. But as part of their Institute, it is a sanctioned view of MT. As such, you can see what they are saying about those who reject this teaching, or are not “conducting church” in the ways prescribed in the article. Such a narrow and arguably obscure view is not in keeping with MT’s non-denominational stance.

Ministries Today’s commitment to educating church leaders is commendable, and I hope other Pentecostal/charismatic publications will soon follow suit. However, with our need for an understanding of the primary doctrines that unite us, I see no need for MT to endorse disputable teachings representing a small part of a large movement.

Reviewed by Mike Dies