16
The reason why he seems to reverse his methodology at this point is due to the unknownness of the future. Science
cannot describe a future with any hope. If one is to accept the fact that God will recreate the world, then one must go
to Scripture for assurances that this will indeed happen.
72
Thus Polkinghorne intentionally contradicts science and
makes it subservient to theology in formulating his understanding of eschatology.
Polkinghornes bold approach to eschatology is significant. As both scientist and theologian, he is faced
with the difficult question of how to remain faithful to the dictates of science and yet stay within the scope of
biblical revelation. Therefore, his cosmological view, while remaining evolutionary in nature, is modified to include
a watchful God who thoughtfully allows an open universe. Such a universe allows for growth, development, and
even apparent blundering mistakes in order to insure free human will. But such a universe, Polkinghorne concludes,
is ultimately transient and nonanthropomorphically oriented; tragically, it must eventually destroy the very life it
has, under Gods direction, formed unless another solution can be found. At this point, Polkinghorne can no longer
look to science as directional, for to do so would make divine revelation null and void. Further, it would present a
bleak and daunting future, completely devoid of hope. Finally, it would make the Christian claim of a resurrected
and redemptive Christ a silly tale, a mere "opiate of the masses."
The primary evidence for the eschaton, and thus for a hopeful future, to Polkinghorne, is the birth, life, and
resurrection of Christ as recorded in Scripture.
73
Because the Bible is not a convenient, divinely dictated handbook
in which to look up answers, but is "the record of the persons and events that have been particularly open to the
presence of divine reality and through which the divine nature may most transparently be discerned,"
74
then
humanity has reason to retain hope that what the Scripture says about a coming eschaton will also come true.
Thus Polkinghorne seeks to find a "middle ground" between the often opposing disciplines of science and
theology. But in doing so, he must incorporate a dual hermeneutic within his system. Where hope is called for,
Polkinghorne incorporates Scripture as foundational for explanation; where objectivity is necessitated, he makes
72
Ibid., 53.
73
Ibid., 116.
74
Ibid., 53.