Dear David:
Thanks for your reply. Yes, Enoch and Elijah and our Lord stand as
examples of some alternative means of passing from earth to heaven. I also
agree that our communion with God is broken by our own disobedience. I'm
just not sure that our ancestors ever experienced even an instant of
unbroken communion.
And you're correct, C.S. Lewis did not dismiss evolution entirely. I just
don't recall where he wrote about theology being informed by evolution in a
positive way (but I'll try to look up his statements in _Mere
Christianity_). I do recall an essay he wrote about evolution having
become more than science, having become a myth in our culture that needed
to be recognized as just a myth.
Some theologians have really grappled with evolutionary science. I want to
learn good stuff from them. Problem is, I'm hearing different things from
different theologians whom I respect. Some of the differences are probably
not really contradictions, but some seem to be. Among the theologies I see
two strains, one which embraces evolution but discounts evil and God's
wrath, another which emphasizes evil and God's wrath but discounts
evolution.
- Peacocke and Haught and de Chardin are examples of the first strain.
They speak of Darwinism as a theological blessing (even if in disguise),
while those who disagree denigrate such evolutionary theology as
"theological positivism." Currently I'm reading John Haught's _God after
Darwin_. In his chapter "Darwin's Gift to Theology," he writes:
"Reflection on the Darwinian world can lead us to contemplate more
explicitly the mystery of God as it is made manifest in the story of life's
suffering, the epitome of which lies for Christians in the crucifixion of
Jesus. In the symbol of the cross, Christian belief discovers a God who
participates fully in the world's struggle and pain. . . . Hence Darwin's
idea will indeed prove to be dangerous after all - dangerous not to
theology as such but certainly to all the shallow theologies of order that
ignore the divine attributes of co-suffering, or com-passionate
involvement, in the life process." (p. 46)
And in Haught's chapter entitled "Religion, Ethics, and Evolution," he does
a very interesting thing with the Garden and the Fall:
"What, then, might original sin mean? . . . in this setting original sin
means that each of us is born into a still unfinished, imperfect universe
where there already exist strong pressures - many of them inherited
culturally over countless generations - for us to acquiesce in an
indifference to God's creative cosmic aim of maximizing beauty." (p. 138)
"However, the awareness of this sinful state of affairs can occur to us
only if we also already have at least some sense of what the "ideal"
(nonsinful) situation would be like. Religions can make us deeply aware of
our flawed condition only by providing us with vivid symbolic portrayals of
an "essential" condition . . . free from the suffering and evil that beset
us now. . . after Darwin, . . . we locate the "essential" or ideal world
"up ahead" . . .(p. 139)
"By making this adjustment in the ideal or "essential" world's temporal
coordinates, moving it from the mistiness of the ambiguous past to the
always faithful future, we not only render the notion of original sin
completely compatible with evolutionary science but also give a
significance to cosmic evolution . . ." (p. 140)
Peacocke and de Chardin and others have written somewhat similarly.
Now, the second strain I see is exemplified by Helmut Thielicke in _How the
World Began_ (Fortress Press, 1961). In his chapter entitled "The Mystery
of Death" he writes:
"So for the Bible death is not simply a part of nature. Rather the natural
processes - which, of course, the Bible does not deny - are only the
vehicle in which the "last enemy" drives about. Therefore all this
unnaturalness, this disorder, this "wrongness" in the world must give way
when Jesus Christ comes and lays our hand *again* (emphasis mine) in the
hand of the Father." (p. 178)
Here's a more recent theologian, Steven Kuhl, in his essay "Darwin's
Dangerous Idea . . . And St. Paul's: God, Humanity, Responsibility, Meaning
in the Light of Evolutionary Findings" published in _Creation & Evolution_
(ITEST Faith/Science Press, 1998):
"The defining feature of the creation . . . is not the awe inspiring design
and complexity of it all . . . but the "Wrath of God" that rests upon it
(Rom 1:18; 3:23; etc.), giving the world a dubious, ambiguous, meaningless,
character." (pp. 79-80).
Kuhl says it's wrong to think that if only we had clearer epistemological
access to God (of the sort Haught provides?), then we would see that the
Creator acted/acts out of love, compassion, and mercy, and we would find
meaning in the world science shows us. No, Kuhl says that the atheistic
evolutionists are correct in interpreting (unredeemed) nature as
meaningless. Quoting Kuhl again,
"Therefore, for Paul, contrary to traditional theism, creation is not the
ground or presupposition of Meaning, but of Meaninglessness. This is so
because creation, as we know it, is characterized by the deadly clash of
human sin and the wrath of God." (p. 96)
Obviously I've chosen passages that highlight the contrast between Haught
on the one hand and Thielicke and Kuhl on the other hand. In other places
they sound more alike. But, can you see the dilemma? Is what Kuhl
dismissively refers to as "traditional theism" (or "theological
positivism") wrong to emphasize God's love, vulnerability, etc. as a way to
understand suffering and death in nature?
Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Member, Prehealth Sciences Advisory Committee
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Voice: (402)-280-2154 or -2321
FAX: (402)-280-5595
e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 15:02:18 EST