First, the LDS blog, New Cool Thang, fired me up with their charge of bibliolatry among evangelicals.
Secondly, Alister McGrath provoked my thoughts on Christian bibliolatry when I read his book, The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Intervarsity Press, 2007), castigating both atheist and Christian fundamentalism.
Thirdly, Ted Olsen chimes in on the Christianity Today blog with Moreland’s accusations of bibliolatry among evangelicals. Today, I noticed Francis Beckwith’s sensitive comment in the thread on “Roman magisterium”.
And I also, today, read Blake Ostler’s post on New Cool Thang that could be helpful in explaining Mormon magisterium (if this would be an accepted term by LDS).
I initiated my first question on bibliolatry last Friday. But now, I want to backup to a section I read in McGrath’s book on NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria) and POMA (partially overlapping magisteria).
I am wondering if there would be a common link where McGrath, Beckwith, and Ostler all believe in POMA, whereas some conservative evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists believe in nonoverlapping magisteria of Scripture.
Here is an excerpt from McGrath’s latest book fleshing this out:
Our brief discussion of the limits of science suggests that the natural sciences, philosophy, religion and literature all have a legitimate place in the human quest for truth and meaning. This is a widely held view, both in Western culture at large and even within many sections of the scientific community itself. However, it is not universally held within that community. The somewhat ugly term scientism has now emerged to designate those natural scientists who refuse to concede any limits to the sciences – such as Dawkins. The issues are encountered at several points in The God Delusion, especially in Dawkins’s critique of Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of the NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria) of science and religion.
On Gould’s view the “magisterium of science” deals with the “empirical realm,” whereas the “magisterium of religion” deals with “questions of ultimate meaning.” (The term magisterium is best understood as a “sphere of authority” or “domain of competency.”) Gould holds that these two magisteria do not overlap. I think he’s wrong. Dawkins also thinks he’s wrong, although for different reasons. For Dawkins there is only one magisterium – emperical reality. This is the only reality that exists. The idea of allowing theology to speak about anything is outrageous. “Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves?” It’s an interesting piece of rhetoric, but it doesn’t even begin to address the issues that Gould rightly raised but answered wrongly.
For there is, of course, a third option–that of “partially overlapping magisteria” (a POMA, so to speak), reflecting a realization that science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpretation of their subjects and methods. One obvious exponent of this view is Francis Collins, an evolutionary biologist who heads up the famous Human Genome Project. Collins speaks of “a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews.” “The principles of faith are,” he suggests, “complementary with the principles of science.” Others can easily be cited, from many scientific disciplines, making substantially the same point. In my own “scientific theology” project I explore how theology can learn from the methodology of the natural sciences in exploring and developing its ideas. This approach of “overlapping magisteria” is implicit in the philosophy of “critical realism,” which is currently having such an impact on illuminating the relationship of the natural and social sciences (40-41).
Thinking about all this, I am curious over which label Moreland would be more comfortable with, NOMA or POMA? I believe that God uses Scripture as the final magisteria for evangelicals.
Do you think this to be relevant to the discussion on bibliolatry in America in 2007?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
POMA, as described above, is deeply ingrained in the tradition of Mormonism.
Todd, are you ready to say that your reading of the scriptures is not influenced by scientific advancement?
All may be interested to know that JP has posted his response to the CT blog on the Kingdom Triangle blog: http://kingdomtriangle.blogspot.com/2007/11/morelands-response-to-ct-blog.html
Moreover, the link also provides access to the full-text of Moreland’s ETS paper. Moreland’s http://www.kingdomtriangle.com also provides opportunity to sample his book Kingdom Triangle, along with audio of him speaking and being interviewed about the book.
Amera, I have just read the full-text of Moreland’s ETS paper. Thank you much for the link.
To provide a little background of why I think this is all pertinent discussion in Mormon country . . .
I think Mormonism stands in reaction to the cold, dry hybrids and extremes of Calvinism. A main attraction to the LDS church is living prophecy. LDS do not believe in the cessation of the gifts. But I think Joseph Smith went to far in his pushing the living voice of God for today. It meant that he needed to do revisions to the biblical text to match with the modern day revelations. It meant that Scripture was not sufficient for many categories of faith.
My wife grew up Pentecostal. Interestingly, things exploded in Idaho Falls years ago when an LDS elder converted to Christian pentecostalism – Christianity far different than LDS teachings because of the “grounding in the monotheistic God” but still retaining gifts of prophecy, tongues, miracles, etc. This created an uproar in the city.
So in seminary, I studied diligently and widely on pentecostalism. When Dr. Moreland over on the Christianity Today thread, shares that he is a committed evangelical of the third wave sort, this rings bells in my mind. For my History of Doctrines class, my research paper was the Third Wave and signs and wonders.
Yes, I think I differ from Dr. Moreland and this prominent Idaho Christian (who is very outspoken against Mormonism) on the topics of the gifts and sufficiency of revelation. I greatly appreciate the biblical counseling movement, etc.
But hopefully, I will not be caustic or mean as both Dr. Moreland and this Idahoan would write in their rebuke of the heresy hunters.
Todd, I think it would be very helpful if you might share, after reading Dr. Moreland’s paper, which parts, arguments or ideas of the paper you agree with and which parts you disagree with. Not as a substitute for reading the paper, but for the sake of facilitating the discussion, Dr. Moreland sets forth his views under the following headings.
1. American Evangelical Over-commitment to the Bible
2. Why are Contemporary Evangelicals Over-committed to the Bible?
3. Three Areas where Over-commitment to the Bible is Harming Evangelicals.
4. Two Suggestions for Correcting the Problem.
Perhaps you are already planning on doing this, but I would be interested in knowing how you would distinguish your position under those four headings from Dr. Moreland’s position.
It would be helpful to the discussion but because of my energies focused on some other topics still waiting on the backburner, Aquinas, I will table presently at least my input on this topic. I appreciate your patience.