Time, Causation, and Salvation
By John Drury
Some
of the most basic Christian doctrines presuppose a concept of time and
causation. For theology, these
categories have been almost entirely dictated by Newtonian physics, despite the
fact that they have undergone radical reconfiguration within modern physics. Although modern physics may not have the
final answer to these issues, Christian theological reflection is nevertheless
wise to not lock-in to out of date categories.
In this paper I aim to loosen the grip of Newtonian categories of time
and causation from Christian soteriology.
I hope this process will open the door to new reflection on age old
issues like predestination, the tenses of salvation, and the doctrine of
physical resurrection.
Methodological
Considerations
The
discussion of the interaction between modern physics and Christian theology has
tended to center around the issues of creation and miracles. The “big bang” of modern cosmology has
received a mixed response from Christian theologians, and the issues of chance
and probability has re-opened the debate over divine intervention. Many Christians have taken the new physics to
be an opportunity to defend the existence and meaning of God anew.
I
propose that Christian theology ought to have a much different attitude toward
modern developments in physics. The
aforementioned discussions attempt to use physics to “prove” God and his
intervention in the world. However,
modern physics may make room for belief in God, but it does little to prove
it. For instance, many have tried to
affirm the “big bang” as the moment in time when God created the cosmos. However, the “big bang” singularity is not
just the beginning of matter and energy, but also of space-time and causation. How could a God act “before” time or “outside”
space? How could God “cause” the
processes of causation? We are forced to
use senseless temporal-spatial and causal categories when trying to prove God
and creation in this manner. At best we
can speak of the possibility of God’s role, but the proposition is
rather difficult to prove.
On
the other hand, the new developments in modern physics have direct relation to
significant Christian doctrines other than creation. The most significant of these is soteriology
-- reflection on salvation. Soteriology
is forced to assume certain categories of time and cause. Therefore, the changing view of these
categories in modern physics is directly related to soteriology. In this discussion, however, the goal is not
to prove Christian doctrines from science, but rather to utilize new scientific
discoveries to reflect anew on the age old questions of soteriology.
It
is important to note that this process does not imply Christian theology to be
entirely subjected to modern physics. On
the contrary, the point of this paper is that theology should not be held by
the categories of any particular scientific paradigm. For the past few centuries Christian
soteriology has been held tightly by Newtonian concepts of time and causation. My proposal is that theologians have every
right to open the door to new discoveries in physics. This open-door policy will not only keep
theology up-to-date, but also more liberated than it would be by locking-in to
one particular scientific paradigm.
The
Role of Temporal and Causal Categories in Science and Theology
The
relationship between cause and effect has been an age-old discussion for
philosophers and scientists. Time is a
category of existence which must be dealt with in any scientific system. What is often taken for granted is the
significance of these same categories for theological reflection. I will first point out the role of time and
causation in scientific inquiry, then follow with a discussion of the often
unspoken role of these categories in Christian soteriology.
The
scientific discipline of physics studies the basic realities of the
cosmos. One of these most basic elements
is time. In order to speak of things
“happening” in the universe, the scientist must speak in temporal categories. Although not a material entity, time is an
integral part of reality. At the most
basic level, the cosmos is made up of matter, energy, space and time. One cannot be a physicist without saying
something about time.
Physics
also studies the basic processes at work in the universe. The force of gravity, for instance, is a
central topic of discussion for physicists.
An even more basic process of the cosmos is causation. Actions are related by cause and effect in
some way. Physicists observe actions in
the universe and postulate their causes.
These
same categories also play a central role in Christian theology. They play an obvious role in the discussion
of creation and miracles, with which most science-theology dialogue is
concerned. Yet they play an equally
crucial albeit less recognized role in soteriology, which is usually thought to
have little to do with science.
Theologians must assume a great deal about time and causation to discuss
God’s salvific activity.
For
instance, the age-old debate over free-will and predestination takes for
granted time and causation. When does
God grant us grace? Who is the cause of
salvation, our faith or divine decree?
These are temporal and causal questions akin to that which a physicist
might ask about natural processes in the universe. The discussion of physical resurrection,
besides raising important mind-body questions, also carries implications for
how the future interacts with the present.
Christian soteriology is overwhelmingly eschatological, putting an
emphasis on the meaning of the future.
This future emphasis is necessarily influenced by one’s concept of
time. Even the very term “salvation
history” reveals the significance of time for Christian soteriology.
I
propose that much of the grid-lock one finds in the current debate of these
issues could be loosened if theologians would allow for a new understanding of
temporal and causal categories. The
rigid concepts of time and causation found in Newtonian physics have up to now
defined the perimeters of the debate.
New avenues for reflection will open if theology is willing to listen to
the insights of modern physics. In order
to do this, one must better understand the revolutionary new ideas of time and
causation in contrast to Newtonian physics.
Time
and Causation in Modern Physics
Simply
put, Newton’s laws of time and cause are too rigid. This rigidity is exactly what has been
critiqued by modern physics. His highly
influential laws assumed time to be absolute (Hawking 18). Causation was also a rigid concept -- forces
cause objects to move in predictable patterns.
The theory of relativity, developed and popularized by Albert Einstein,
“put an end to the idea of absolute time” (Hawking 22). Quantum mechanics, developed and popularized by
Werner Heisenberg, destroyed the predictability of cause and effect by means of
the uncertainty principle (Hawking 59).
The
theory of relativity has given our understanding of time a thorough
re-interpretation. For instance, the
time dilation effect of highly sensitive atomic clocks implies that time is not
absolute (Davies 120). Time is relative
to each particular consciousness. One
cannot, for instance, synchronize watches absolutely. Past, present and future are aspects of one’s
consciousness. One person’s past is
another person’s future. Furthermore,
time is not a separate entity from space but is rather combined with it forming
what is called space-time (Hawking 24).
Therefore, time is not a mere measurement locating someone on a
time-line, but rather a dynamic part of reality itself. (Hawking 36).
Like
his concept of time, Newton’s rigid concept of causation has undergone attack
by modern physics. Newton’s laws implied
the absolute predictability of effects based on a knowledge of the causes
(Hawking 57). The developments in
quantum mechanics have now destroyed this predictability. For instance, one cannot simultaneously
measure the location and the speed of a particle (Heisenberg 45). Rather, physicists must use probability to
describe natural processes. This is
known as the uncertainty principle.
There remains the chance connection between events, yet a rigid concept
of cause and effect cannot persist (Bohm 20).
In light of the uncertainty principle, physicists have had to renounce
of traditional Newtonian causality as a category of observation (Bohm 84)
Furthermore,
chaos theory points out that when complex systems interact there are too many
unknown causes at work for one to speak in terms other than probability. Also, quantum mechanics affirms the notion
that the observer plays a significant role in observed reality (Gribbin
211-213). Therefore, causes are not
known absolutely since the act of observing itself becomes a sort of undefined
“cause.” Along with the revolutions in
our concept of time, the traditional understanding of causation has been
replaced with the principles of uncertainty and predictability. The cosmos remains related to itself as much
as if not more so than before, yet without the rigidity of the Newtonian paradigm.
The
Implications for Christian Soteriology
The
considerable impact of relativity and quantum mechanics upon our traditional
understanding of time and causation are undeniable. One might, however, contend that this has
nothing to do with the world at large.
However, the world is made up of these basic realities, so these
observations have significant implications for the meaning of reality in
general (Gribbin 211).
Nevertheless,
even if the significance of modern physics on life in general is granted, one
might still contend to its irrelevance to theology. Is not religion about the unseen world? Although religious matters are unseen, they
must nevertheless be regarded as real, or else they have no meaning at
all. Therefore, since the content of theology
participates in reality, the developments of modern physics carry with them
implications for it.
As
we have already noted, the physical categories of time and causation are
especially relevant to Christian soteriology.
There are three areas of soteriology which experience significant
re-interpretation in light of modern physics.
These are the free-will versus predestination debate, the tenses of
salvation, and physical resurrection.
The objective is to free these discussions from rigid Newtonian
categories of time and causation in order to open up new reflection and fresh
possibilities.
Who
is the “cause” of salvation? This is
the basic question debated between proponents of free will and those who hold
to predestination. The argument for predestination
seems very simple within Newtonian categories of causation: God is the cause
and human salvation is the effect. If
humans played any part in the process, then God would become contingent on
humanity and therefore would no longer be sovereign. Proponents of free will would retort by
identifying salvation as a divine gift which can either be accepted or
rejected. In both cases, God is affirmed
as the first cause, yet the Newtonian categories typically used to debate the
matter favor the argument for predestination.
What
happens to the debate when the modern concept of causation is applied to
it? Complete predictability and rigid
causation have been repealed by quantum mechanics. Therefore, one can no longer simply say that
God’s sovereignty is lost by the inclusion of human interaction. The fact that God’s act comes first does not
necessarily make it a rigid cause (Davies 137).
Quantum mechanics can speak of reverse-time causality, wherein an action
in the future can cause an effect in the past.
Also, according to chaos theory, the interaction of complex systems
produces an uncertainty of causation.
This implies that humans might be participating in their own salvation
without necessarily making God a contingent being. Certainly the divine and human realms are
systems as complex as anything at the quantum level. An open attitude toward the complex
interaction between free-will and predestination is made possible by modern
physics.
When
are we saved? Were we saved in the past by divine decree,
in the present by faithful confession, or in the future by the eschatological
act of God? The appropriate answer to
this question is that all three tenses are part of one salvation (Caird
118-119). However, holding these three
in tension is very difficult, for they each carry implications which contradict
each other under Newtonian categories of time.
We are both already saved yet still awaiting salvation. This is an insoluble paradox where the
discussion currently stands. New
reflections are made possible, however, when one takes into account the
relativity of time.
If
time is a web where past, present, and future are relative aspects of reality,
then a rigid distinction of what has already happened and what is still to come
will not suffice. Theologians are often
found equivocating on the temporal interaction between the present kingdom of
God and its future culmination. The
kingdom of God is incomplete now and therefore a future a reality, yet it also is
experienced in the present through the Spirit.
According to relativity, present need not precede the future except in
our consciousness. Therefore, the
complete kingdom of God remains in the future, yet is experienced in the
present (Kung 221). “The end casts light
and shade before it” (Kung 223). God
then dwells in the future as His dimension (Kung 224). We can see here the relation between
soteriology and modern physics, for past, present, and future are different
dimensions rather than points an absolute time-line.
When
are we resurrected? The doctrine of
a physical resurrection has experienced a myriad of problems throughout the
history of Christianity. What happens to
the soul and/or the body when one dies?
It is silly to think of the soul leaving the body to go to heaven, then returning
with Jesus at the end of time to re-inhabit its body. Yet to simply deny the physical aspect of
resurrection is to deny a core truth of the scriptures.
The
possibilities opened up by the principle of relative time are
considerable. One who experiences life
after death would experience an increased consciousness of the unseen world
(Griffin 105). As we have already noted,
the unseen world is in many ways the realm of the future. Taking into account the relativity of time,
death could very well bring about the increased consciousness of future
realities. In other words, one is
resurrected into the future.
Furthermore,
one could believe in a physical resurrection without being relegated to a sharp
mind-body dualism. Relative time implies
the possibility of instantaneous physical resurrection into another realm of
reality at the time of death while those who are yet living remain in this
realm. In this way, those who die are
entering into the future where Jesus has already entered (Moltmann 202). This proposal is in considerable harmony with
the apostle Paul when he speaks of Jesus as the first-fruits of our own
resurrection (I Cor. 15:23).
Conclusion
We
have seen how modern physics has much to say about time and causation that is
relevant for Christian theology. The
above implications for soteriology are only the beginning. Much more theological reflection is to
come. Nevertheless, the most significant
revolution takes place when soteriology as a whole is freed from the shackles
of Newtonian categories of time and causation.
With this shift securely made, further reflection will become easier and
the path to fresh solutions will be lighted.
Spring 2001
Bibliography:
Bohm, David. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.
Caird, G. B. New Testament Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Davies, Paul. God and the New Physics. New York: Touchstone, 1983.
Gribbin, John. In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat: Quantum
Physics and Reality. Toronto: Bantam
Books, 1984.
Griffin, David
Ray. God and Religion in the
Postmodern World. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1989.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1989.
Heisenberg,
Werner. Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row, 1958.
Kung, Hans. On Being A Christian. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976.
Moltmann, Jurgen. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the
Implications of a Christian Eschatology.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.