Hey, George:
LStart the party. How do you take a Christ-centered approach to the
science-religion problem?
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of george murphy
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:53 AM
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: bnelson301@yahoo.com; Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: Re: The Problem of Liberal Theology
Amen to Michael's remarks. But with regard to science-religion
issues,
there is not just a problem with liberal theology.
I think that one major cause of the problem is a failure to focus
on
Christ in theology & especially in connection with science. This is
true across
the spectrum of science-religion discussions, including ASA. By this I do
not
mean that people do not believe in Christ, accept him as savior &c but
simply
that their reflection on the faith & its implications, especially
with regard to
science, does not begin with Christ & often has little to do with Christ.
Instead, concentration tends to be on "God" or the Bible. If
the former
then the discussion is susceptible to the idea that "we all believe in the
same
God" & anything peculiar to Christian belief becomes of secondary
importance.
This kind of thing is very popular - indeed, seems to be favored - in
Templeton
Foundation sponsored science-religion activities. ("Spirituality" is
another
popular ersatz Christianity.)
If the Bible is the focus of attention then interminable debates
take
place about the historicity of Genesis, concordism, &c & again the
distinctive
features of Christianity do not play a major role. Even when christological
considerations are invoked, it is usually to validate certain ideas about
the
Bible - Jesus "taught" that Genesis was historical &c.
So most religion-science discussions, including those on this list,
could go on with little modification if everything relating to distinctively
Christian faith were removed. They are theistic (whether traditional,
process,
panen, pan, or whatever) but not trinitarian.
How does a christological focus make any difference in practice?
To
take just one example, in his recent debate with Blake Nelson, Glenn Morton
referred to the "necessity" of God in connection with belief in a temporal
origin of the universe (a belief which, BTW, I am strongly inclined to
favor).
In what sense is God "necessary"? If the character of God is most fully
revealed in the one who "did not think equality with God a thing to be
grasped,
but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" then one can argue that
that
God as the creator should not be understood to be "necessary". As
Bonhoeffer
puts it, God "lets himself be pushed out of the world onto a cross".
One of the
implications of this is that the world can be understood "though God were
not
given" - i.e., the methodological naturalism which is crucial for science.
Thus, e.g., the true God is not to be understood as one who "left his
fingerprints all over the evidence".
Qualifications:
1) I certainly do not think that I have _proven_ the claims
that I make
in the last paragraph. At this point I'm simply trying to raise the issue
of
christological focus as fundamental. For more details on the specific
argument
see my article in the March 2001 PSCF.
2) I am not trying to pick on Glenn here. The belief of
traditional
philosophical theism that God is "necessary" is very common.
3) To say that God should not be considered as "necessary" does
not
mean that God is simply "unnecessary" - a careful discussion of the sense in
which one is speaking of "necessity" is important. Juengel makes the case
(connecting his argument profoundly with a theology of the cross) that God
should be considered "more than necessary".
4) To forestall the usual question, yes, I believe in the
resurrection. But if it isn't the resurrection of the crucified then
it doesn't
mean squat.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
Michael Roberts wrote:
> Can I put in a change of direction?
>
> Blake Nelson wrote;
> In fact, I think the depradations of
> > someone like Spong are silly, because Spong has
> > adopted a pastiche of modern scientific methodology to
> > scripture which is unwarranted and only barely misses
> > adopting a completely materialist metaphysic. IMHO,
> > those folks, generally, do as much harm to
> > Christianity as the YEC crowd.
>
> As I am in a broad church which covers the whole range of theological
> opinion - The Church of England (I was in the Church of Wales til last
> August and was one of the ultra-conservatives!) - I see and feel the
damage
> done by extreme liberals.
>
> Blake cited dear old Bish Spong, who actually has not 'adopted a pastiche
of
> modern scientific methodology ' but rather is stuck in an old mind set
which
> is dependant on the conflict thesis of science and religion, in which any
> conservative theolgy has to be rejected as it is assumed that
conservative
> means literal. We have several similar sorts in Britain, There is Bish
> Rcihard Holloway who delights in taking a radical position. In his 60s as
> the Presisding Bishop of Scotland he took drugs to see what it was like.
His
> books sell a bomb especially among anglican clergy. I reckon every time
he
> opens his mouth scores leave the church either to agnosticism or
> fundamentalism (one may as well be hung for a sheep than a loaf of bread)
> Then there is Don Cupitt - a Cambridge theolgian who started the Sea of
> Faith Movenment for people who dont believe in God but cling to
> Christianity. He argues for a non-realist view of God. His book "The Sea
of
> Faith" is classic conflict thesis of science and religion and he uses
the
> rise of science to "prove" his non-realist view of God. However he gets
his
> history of science absolutely and utterly wrong - completley
misunderstands
> William Smith according to Torrens the Briish auhtority of Smith,
parodies
> Hugh Miller and gets Darwin wrong.
> Lastly Paul Badham a Welsh theologian wrote a book 'The Challenge of
> Modernist Theollgy' and claimed that in 1890 there had to be modernism to
> provide an intellectually viable restatemnet of Christianity which
accepts
> science to counteract the 6 day literlaism of orthodox Prots. His histroy
is
> plain woeful to be charitable yet it has had glowing reviews except for
my
> hatchet job in the Expository Times in 2000.
>
> And dont forget some science and religion exponents like Arthur Peacocke
who
> though brilliant in his attack on reductionism has a closed universe
which
> denies any miraculous. We also see in it Keith Ward who is very
multi-faith
> and like so many liberals ditches the whole uniqueness of Christ. One can
> also note that the atonement went a long time ago, there is no empty tomb
> and now the divinity of Christ is under question. Since Sept 11 some feel
we
> must be inclusive to other faiths especially islam and not try to uphold
or
> mention the unique claims of Christ.
>
> All this is very confusing to the average Christian and tends to unsettle
> their faith. Blake is absolutely right to say they do as much harm to
> Christianity as YEC.
>
> What we are being offered by such is a general transendence in contrast
to
> the reductionism of Dawkins et al but none of it will put fire in our
hearts
> and is simply a featherbed to catch a falling Christian (an expression
used
> by grandad Erasmus Darwin to describe Unitarianism)0
>
> Now there are many issues raised by liberal theology but ones which
affects
> us on the ASA list is the portrayal of Trad orthodoxy as literalism, the
> conflict thesis of science and Christianity, the issue of miracles or
rather
> the involvemnt of God in his Creation, and the necessity of Creation ex
> nihilo (Yes Burgy I have read loads on the subject)
>
> At the risk of offending some or rather putting a stone to stumble on,
all
> these issues are related,
>
> Frankly in contrast to wooly liberalism Young earth fundamentalism does
have
> its attractions!
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 13:55:35 EDT