The sustaining power of God in maintaining the creation instant by instant
has to be factored in any such attempt. I believe I learned that from C.S.
Lewis. Easy to say but hard to fathom! Moorad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
To: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: How do we escape the enlightenment terms natural and
supernatural
As a FWIW contribution to this discussion, here's a brief excerpt of
something I'm working on:
***************************************************
Question: In the context of what we have come to know via the natural
sciences about the character of the universe and of its formational history,
how can we best articulate our understanding of divine action < both
creative and providential?
I shall begin by saying that I believe that we do need to re-articulate our
concept of divine action. I have a high respect for the theological
tradition of my Calvinist heritage, but the theology that I was taught --
like the theology taught to the vast majority of Christians today -- was
framed in the conceptual vocabulary and thought patterns of centuries long
past. My own theological heritage clearly bears the marks of having been
crafted within the framework of a late-medieval world picture -- geocentric
in both its physical structure and its focus of attention, unaware of the
multi-level (quarks to quasars) structure of the universe, unaware of its
formational history and its astounding array of formational capabilities,
and unable to imagine that we would someday have empirical access to that
history and to the creaturely processes that have contributed to it.
This inherited world picture includes a conceptual vocabulary for speech
about divine action. Most of us were presented with a picture of God as an
all-powerful, transcendent, person-like being who was both able and willing
to engage in supernatural intervention -< particular acts in which the
continuity of the creaturely cause/effect system was interrupted and
superseded by coercive divine action. I say Ocoerciveı not to imply any lack
of loving motivation but to denote divine action that forces creatures to
act in ways contrary to or beyond what they could otherwise have done.
Traditional portraits of the creationıs formational history often made
liberal use of the supernatural intervention motif. Episodic creationism,
for instance, envisions divine creative action in a way that places great
emphasis on the idea that new structures and life forms were actualized, not
by creatures using their God-given formational capabilities, but by the
direct form-conferring action of the Creator. Relics of these traditional
portraits remain in use today -< museum pieces now grandly framed with
gilded claims of empirical support.
I have long sought to portray both the creation and Godıs creative action
with a vision that is founded on the historic Christian doctrine of creation
but crafted in the conceptual vocabulary of this day. The conceptual
vocabularies of centuries past can no longer be treated as if they remained
adequate in this era. We should no longer be content simply to repeat things
exactly as they were said in the 16th century, or in the first century. It
is no longer adequate simply to say what they said theologians or biblical
writers. Instead, we must, I believe, do what they
did. We, like our predecessors, must experience Godıs presence in the world
about us and craft our portraits of divine action in the conceptual
vocabulary of our own time and place.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 10:50:32 EDT