In this book, John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker present, in turn and in summary form, their views on the central themes of the Christian faith. Both of them have written at greater length on these issues elsewhere, and the specialist reader who wants a sustained exposition of their thinking should no doubt turn to some of their other publications. However, the authors agree that this work marks an advance on their other writings in one respect. Because of their differences (in terms of language, denomination, disciplinary background and generation) they are able in this book to achieve a multi-perspectival (or at any rate a ‘binocular’) conception of the central questions of Christian theology.

The organisation of the book reflects the authors’ intention to facilitate a real engagement of their respective points of view, rather than just a listing of points of affinity and contrast. To this end each offers a short essay on the main themes of the book, and the other then gives a brief rejoinder to these reflections, before the first author presents an even briefer response to the response. Following this dialogical pattern, the authors address in turn the issues of faith in God the creator, faith in Christ, and faith in the Holy Spirit. Then in the second part of the book, they each offer an account of the idea of faith seeking understanding, before closing with a jointly written chapter on ‘the search for truth and understanding’. Given the rationale of the book, the reader is interested of course to see what differences of perspective emerge in the course of the discussion, and to see whether the recognition of these differences enables a development in the thinking of one or other author.

As one would expect, Polkinghorne’s treatment of the various themes of the book is characterised by a determination to build bridges between Christian perspectives and the kind of understanding that is typical of the sciences (especially physics) and the kind of understanding that is familiar from everyday interpersonal contexts. Hence in the opening section of the book, he argues that cosmic order and fruitfulness point towards a theistic account of the world (pp. 19–20). And natural evil, he suggests, can be understood in part by recognising the role of cell mutation in generating new creaturely types (p. 22), while moral evil typically meets with resistance in virtue of a kind of ‘ethical immuno-suppressive system’ (p. 17). On the other side, Welker is rather sceptical about the value of any ‘natural awareness of God’, noting (with Calvin) that experience of this kind is ‘vague and fleeting’ (p. 24). He notes too that any such awareness is likely to be ‘more or less pre-shaped by a pre-understanding of the God revealed’ (p. 24). And while Welker also shows some willingness to draw comparisons between the practice of science and theology, it is significant that he fixes on this analogy: ‘engagement with Scripture’ plays in theology the sort of role that mathematics plays in the sciences (p. 24). Welker is also, as one would expect, rather more impressed than Polkinghorne by the possibility of ‘totally corrupted public morals’ (p. 25).

So in the opening sections of the book, we find immediately what seems to be a fairly deep-seated difference of starting point. Polkinghorne notes that this difference reflects in part a difference of intended audience: his work is typically addressed to someone impressed by the achievement of the sciences, and accordingly has an ‘apologetic dimension’ (p. 36). By contrast, Welker comments that his own remarks are addressed to a church community, and that he is concerned to rebut a ‘theological reductionism’ which has borrowed notions from philosophy, and thereby produced a simplified and impoverished account of the content of Christian faith (pp. 38, 143–5).

The authors then consider faith in Christ and in the Holy Spirit. Here again Polkinghorne’s approach reflects his openness to apologetic concerns. He notes that in the field of interpersonal relationships, understanding depends upon personal commitment (to an even greater degree than in the sciences) (pp. 41–2); and he comments that if the world has its origins in the activity of a personal God, then ‘we may expect the personal, in all its necessary particularity, to be the prime vehicle for the creator’s revelatory interaction with creation’ (p. 45). So here Polkinghorne presents in abstract rational terms a case for supposing that religious understanding may well imply a revelation which takes personal form, and that appreciation of this revelation may well call for the sort of affectively toned engagement that is typical of faith. Moreover, turning to the particularities of the Jesus story, the idea of God’s suffering helps to remedy a deficiency in purely philosophical responses to the problem of evil (p. 49), while the idea of atonement can be understood in part by reference to the notion of corporate identity, where this notion can be fruitfully explored in the ways suggested by recent scientific reflection on the ‘holistic’ character of reality (p. 53). So in these cases too, we find a dovetailing of the perspectives of reason and revelation.

At the same time, Polkinghorne acknowledges that the notions of a crucified messiah and of resurrection are paradoxical. But then we know from quantum physics that the ‘strange and perplexing’ can be a mark of our engagement with reality (by contrast with the case where we simply extrapolate from a view of the world which is of our own devising) (pp. 46–7). So even where theological proposals prove baffling to natural reason, this is in itself intelligible from the perspective of natural reason, Polkinghorne maintains. And this is why we should be sceptical of theologies, such as a ‘pallid deism’, which fit too comfortably with our prior beliefs (p. 136): the fact that these theologies fail to stretch our conventional assumptions shows that they lack that element of surprise that is commonly the mark of a deeper apprehension of the nature of things.

In his comments on these same themes, Welker is again sceptical about any ‘abstract idea of God’s righteousness or abstract thoughts about God’s life’, and he looks instead to ‘the experiences faith has of God’s righteousness’ (p. 62). Much the same differences of perspective are apparent in the chapters on the Spirit. For instance, Polkinghorne appeals to the experience of scientific and artistic inspiration to illuminate the idea of the Spirit’s working; and he notes that the emerging scientific concept of a ‘top-down’ kind of causality is suggestive of the Spirit’s activity (pp. 79–80). He also comments that reference to the activity of the Spirit may offer a way of acknowledging the ‘authenticity’ of religious experience in non-Christian traditions. Welker writes in his response that: ‘Probably more easily than John, I would embrace the relation of creativity and difference’ (p. 81). Here again, he shows a reserve about making connections across traditions and kinds of understanding, and he comments that: ‘The differentiation of differences seems to be very important in cultures that are still very much influenced by a modern rationality and its liberal drive towards “integration”’ (p. 81).

Similar points of difference are evident in the remaining sections of the book, but I shall forbear from charting them. As the discussion unfolds, the reader remains interested to know whether the dialogical format of the text is contributing towards an enlargement of perspective on the part of either author. Both authors consistently express appreciation of the other’s comments, but for the most part they seem to emerge from their exchanges with their own perspective unaltered. For example, commenting on one of Polkinghorne’s contributions, Welker remarks:

Here agreement with Polkinghorne on the value of diverse perspectives is assimilated (too readily?) to Welker’s own views on the deficiencies of philosophy (when working in isolation from scripture) and the capacity of scripture to encompass the richness of perspective that is required. For his part, Polkinghorne observes for example that he is ‘grateful to Michael Welker for the way in which his chapter widens and deepens the context within which I can place my reflections’ (p. 68). So both authors are inclined to emphasise the convergence and complementarity of their respective approaches. While this response seems appropriate to a point, some readers may have wished for a more direct acknowledgement and examination of their differences.

The final chapter is attributed to both authors, and the reader naturally looks here for some evidence of a reworking of their individual positions into a unified approach. But in fact it seems pretty clear that Polkinghorne has written the first part of the chapter and Welker the second! Perhaps the theoretical perspectives of both authors leave them disinclined to confront their differences. Welker as we have seen is concerned to resist ‘integration’ of certain kinds; and in his discussion of Pentecost he emphasises that in the Christian community, ‘differences of culture, nation and language’ (and perhaps of theological method?) ‘are (rightly) preserved’ (p. 87). And Polkinghorne, as we have seen, is inclined to attribute their differences partly to the differences in their intended audiences; and he is anyway committed to the view that differences of view (drawn from the sciences, the arts, and elsewhere) are required if our understanding is to measure up to the richness of reality. Notwithstanding this sense that the authors do not take full advantage of the opportunity for constructive disagreement, and reformulation of view, this text offers a valuable illustration of how differences in theological method and objective, and in disciplinary and cultural background, can inform theological writing. On this point, the text should prove absorbing reading for general readers and scholars alike.