The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

August 12, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

Mark Noll on Methodological Naturalism

Timothy Dalrymple has a nice interview with Mark Noll over at Patheos, in which Dalrymple asks an important question about historical method:

“To push the issue a little further, do you think it incumbent upon a historian to operate according to something like methodological naturalism — to approach the study of history as though there is no supernatural divine engagement in the natural realm?”

Noll responds: “I’ve written three or four lengthy papers on this question, so I’ll try my best to summarize them in a few sentences!

There is a proper vocation for historians that is analogous to the proper vocation for scientists. I do not regard scientists as practicing methodological atheism, however, when they restrict themselves to natural phenomena. What they are doing is studying nature according to what can be learned through attention to natural phenomenon. I would say the same about history. There is a proper way of doing history that restricts itself to natural phenomena, which is not necessarily methodologically atheistic.”

Noll is certainly correct if his larger point is that a historian needs to get his facts straight, and that he must not allow his biases to inappropriately shape his conclusions. This is true for everyone, not just Christians.  But I’m not certain the analogy between history and science works. The natural world is designed by God to operate independent of miraculous intervention (if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle). Scientific investigation works precisely because nature is not typically supra-natural. But historical events such as the Great Awakening can’t be properly analyzed simply as bare historical events. Something supernatural was going on. Trying to do natural history on the Great Awakening is like trying to do natural science on the resurrection; from the outset, there’s a whole category of thought that must be explicitly factored in or out of the equation. The historian can’t be neutral at this point, and the position he/she takes will influence the conclusions reached.

But laying this aside, Noll gets to the crux of it when he states in the next sentence, “This leaves some truly important questions, maybe the most important questions, for another procedure.” Indeed. But who is performing this additional procedure?  Because by and large, the academy — at least in biblical and historical studies  — does not encourage its scholars to turn the corner and answer the more important questions of theological/pastoral meaning. Not that no academicians engage in this sort of work (Noll himself does), but it’s generally not institutionally encouraged or supported in the wider academic context. Enter the pastor-theologian… .

You can read the whole interview here. Noll provides some additional commentary on Protestant/Catholic relations, as well as the current state of the evangelical mind.

Categories: Mark Noll