Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Creation, Fall, and Redemption: Three Views

    Yesterday I wrote about the significance of the theory of evolution for the view of evil, particularly whether physical death is the result of human evil. Understanding Christian views on this topic requires some knowledge of the doctrines of creation and the fall, and secondarily of redemption.

    One of the most contentious issues in the creation-evolution controversy amongst Christians involves specifically the creation of human beings. When surveys ask whether humans were specially created by God recently (6-10 thousand years), they may get skewed results because of this. There are a number of Christians who believe the universe and the earth are old, and that life on earth is old and may well have developed via evolutionary processes, but believe that human beings are specially created. Thus, they would affirm that all life is related except for human beings.

    This may seem very odd from a scientific point of view, but I’m dealing here with theological objections to evolution. While I’m primarily presenting this material as background for understanding the previous objection, there is also the simple objection that because of their special place in God’s plan, human beings must be a special creation. This objection is often misunderstood, and is also often misstated. The major theological problem is not whether the first human was directly formed from dust rather than developed from a prior form, but more that the development must be special and a direct intervention of God. (Note that this is not my view, but rather I’m trying to represent a range of views that require a separate, special creation.)

    There are three elements here. First is the creation of human beings, however accomplished. What was the moral state of these creatures, and how did they attain “the image of God?” Second is the fall. Assuming that humanity original carried God’s image and was on good terms with God (as presented in Genesis), what happened and when? Finally, these two elements will combine to impact one’s view of redemption. The result of redemption depends on what the original state actually was.

    I’m not going to try to name these views. I’m going to describe them and present them in three columns. These views range from a fairly literal one (but not necessarily young earth), to a completely evolutionary view.

    Element View 1 View 2 View 3
    Creation Human beings are specially created, either separately or individually, or on a plan similar to existing apes. They are formed precisely according to a detailed, divine plan. Human beings evolve physical, but receive or become a soul through action of God at a specific point. At that point they are morally innocent and what God would want them to be, even though their bodies are the result of evolutionary processes. Any self-aware, intelligent creature should be regarded as “in the image of God.” The means of forming such a creature are irrelevant. Such a creature would be innocent, but also morally limited based on heredity and environment.
    Fall The fall resulted from a specific violation of a specific, known command of God. Eating the fruit may be symbolic, but it is symbolic of a particular event that occurred chronologically after the creation of human beings, i.e. it is not a part of their state as physical creatures. As a general rule, similar to the first view, though the specific nature of the rebellion may not be specified so precisely. The fall expresses something inherent in the state of a finite creature. There may be a moment of stepping away from innocence, but this is more a matter of recognizing and consciously making moral choices than specifically violating a specific command or even rebelling generally against divine authority.
    Results Physical death resulted from the fall. Young earthers will generally hold that all physical death results from this act. Old earthers may believe simply that human beings suffer death because of the rebellion. Physical death is simply part of the state of being a physical creature. Creatures die; humans are creatures. There is inherent in our condition a separation from our spiritual home with God.
    Redemption Involves return to the originally created state via God’s creative power. (The first two views will overlap here. Involves a return to the original state, only better, with a spiritual body. Redemption allows the spiritual side of humanity to connect with the creator in eternal life, which is a gift given by God. What is meant by “eternal life” varies in how it will be interpreted and what that state of being will be.

    I believe that almost any actual theologian will vary from any single column. My hope is that you will think of a continuum starting with the first view and ending with the third for each element and realize that some mixing and matching will occur. These are just summaries of some of the possibilities. I’m trying to keep this short and thus have not provided all the Biblical support for each position.

    If I generate enough interest in my own mind or on the blog, I may write some more on the Biblical and theological implications of each of these points.

  • Re-presenting a Parable

    Through my watch on the lectionary tag on Technorati, I found another excellent example of finding a new way of presenting and/or thinking about a parable. In this case it’s in a sermon about the Pharisee and the Publican, and the illustration has a Red Sox fan and a Yankee fan go to Cooperstown . . .

    For the rest you need to check out this sermon (Demonizing of Yankees) by Rev. Mindi on Rev-O-Lution.

    It’s not just this particular presentation I hope you see. It’s the whole idea of finding new ways to present the parables, so that people identify with them and get involved in thinking about them.

  • Biblical Studies Carnival XXIII Posted

    . . . at Ancient Hebrew Poetry. I don’t have a post in there this time, but that’s not a complaint–I can’t think of what I’d nominate in this case. I will certainly get some blogging fodder from reading the posts. There are certainly a substantial number of excellent biblioblogs available.

    Speaking of which, John continued his postings with things he left out of the first one and then a map of the world of Bible bloggers. The latter is especially useful.

    Enjoy!

  • Lingamish Blog Boredom

    David (Lingamish) tagged me with a meme I’m happy to get on board with. He asks that I name five up and coming blogs. The problem is there are so many. I’m going to focus on ones that have caught my attention recently. I’m late on this, but I have a good excuse–I was coordinating a conference over the weekend, and then I was recovering from coordinating the conference!

    1. An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution is a wonderful blog with thoughtful, courteous posts on the conflict about evolution in the Christian community. It’s been around since May, so I think it qualifies as young, and I would definitely call it “up and coming.” (I don’t know the age of the lead blogger, but who cares?)
    2. Among the Hills is a blog I picked up from my comments, and then found its haikus on lectionary texts. Since I’m always looking for ways to get people to creatively think about Bible passages, this caught my attention. It takes a bit of thinking to reduce a passage to 17 syllables.
    3. Come to the Waters is John Meunier’s blog, from which I get numerous links and quite a number of thoughtful posts. It’s definitely a worthwhile addition to your blogroll.
    4. The Rogues Gallery, subtitled “The Official Blog of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe” has provided some interesting material lately. I’m hoping it will live up to its promise and become regular reading for me. I first encountered this blog when I criticized one of the entries, which is a great reason to list it!
    5. And last, but not least, a little nepotism. My wife’s new blog is Jody Along the Path. I’m not sure if she’ll play this meme, as she’s new to blogging, but I’m glad to have her in the blogosphere as well as in real life.

    Well, those will do for now. Hopefully this will help alleviate David’s boredom.

  • Mid-week Links 10/31/07

    Just a couple of really interesting things I saw, but don’t have time to comment on fully:

  • Christian Carnival CXCVI

    Well, the Christian Carnival is back to this little corner of the blogosphere, and I’m going to take a theme from the church property and locate the posts somewhere on a church campus. There will obviously be some choices to make, and you might disagree, but remember that you can discuss theology in the parking lot, from the pulpit, or in a Sunday School room just as easily. I may move a post or so just to keep things even!

    There’s some good material. I trust you will be blessed reading it.

    Note: Because of some posts that may have been just too late for last week’s carnival, I allowed some posts that were one day outside the window, but no further. If your post was left out, please don’t hesitate to link in the comments section. I get e-mail notifications from there as quickly as I do by any other method.

    Sunday School Rooms

    Dana presents Western heritage without Christianity? posted at Principled Discovery.

    Tom Gilson presents Coming Soon To Your Child’s School: Hate for God and Church, Heavily Advertised posted at Thinking Christian.

    John presents Another View on Evangelicals Cracking Up posted at Brain Cramps for God. He looks at an article by Joe Carter that offers a principled way to examine the political currents in Evangelicalism.

    Jon Swift presents The Mean Girl Faces of Islamo-Fascism posted at Jon Swift. He says: Even though I am a former (that is, perfected) Jew, I don’t think that I will ever again be able to pass a headscarved Muslim girl in the street again without panicking that she might make a “mean girl face” at me.

    Jody Neufeld (my wife!) presents . . . despised and rejected by men . . . on her blog Jody Along the Path. She looks at the suffering of Jesus and its meaning to us.

    The Community Life Center

    Annette presents This made me laugh! posted at Fish and Cans. She says: Women are different than men….. hmmm…. go figure! 🙂 Sorry, whenever people make discoveries like that it makes me laugh, it seems so ordinary to me.

    Richard H. Anderson presents Waitng on tables, Part 4 posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos.

    ChrisB presents Another Halloween question posted at Homeward Bound.

    livinforhim316 presents Christian Dating Experiences » Practical Ways To Keep God In The Center posted at Christian Dating Experiences.

    Martin LaBar presents The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman on Sun and Shield. It is his reaction to the current e-mail campaign against the upcoming movie, _The Golden Compass_, based on a book by Pullman. He states that Pullman does, indeed, seem to be a militant atheist. However, he thinks that there is a much larger danger from the media.

    Adam presents The Faughn Family of Four: A Shot at… posted at The Faughn Family of Four. Another reality show that appears to have some questionable features.

    David Balderston presents Helping Fire Victims | Life In San Diego posted at David Balderston.

    The Parking Lot

    Don Bosch of The Evangelical Ecologist gives us Life Lessons from Butterflies. He says: Christians often think of caterpillars and butterflies as nature’s “before” and “after” example of how God transformed our lives at Calvary. But God still has lots to teach people about living life like butterflies. This week the Evangelical Ecologist hosts a post called Life Lessons from Butterflies by Rives Duncan. I hope it’s a blessing to you!

    This week at Light Along the Journey, John explores a Biblical definition of love in his post Better Than Warm Squishies.

    Matthew Anderson presents Mere Orthodoxy » Principles, Pragmatics and the Vote: The Impotence of the Religious Right posted at Mere Orthodoxy.

    Kevin presents Desert Wisdom – On Prayer and Activism posted at Everyday Liturgy. He encourages the new movements in Evangelicalism to dig to the root of the problems in American Christianity—and change by recovering the spiritual traditions that (ancient) Christianity has to offer.

    For my own entry, I’m using one from Threads from Henry’s Web, which I rarely do. It is The Joys and Sorrows of being Ex-Seventh-day Adventist. I think it makes interesting parking lot conversation as we meet, greet, chat, and say good bye!

    The Sanctuary

    Jeremy Pierce presents Hate and Murder in Deuteronomy 19 posted at Parableman. Jesus declares hate to be subject to the same judgment as murder. This isn’t really a revision of the law, though, as some claim. Deuteronomy 19 connects punishment for murder with hatred in the heart.

    David presents The Serenity Prayer posted at Frozen Toothpaste.

    Doug presents Ostracization within the Church posted at Bounded Irrationality. Are churches becoming more cliquish? Could this be harming the Church’s outreach?

    Ken Brown at C.Orthodoxy presents Divine Invisibility.” Though many atheists insist that if God exists, he should make it obvious by providing nearly constant miracles, this objection is called into question by their simultaneous claim that belief in God makes us unable to live and learn for ourselves. Constant miracles, while of only dubious value for proving the existence of God, would remove both our ability and motivation to learn for ourselves.

  • Theological Arguments Against Evolution: Sin and Death

    Yesterday I wrote about the senses in which the phrase “bad theology” is used in the creation-evolution debate and in particular on the question of ID. To call something “bad theology” generally requires either a challenge to the internal logic of the statement, or a reference to a particular faith community, because there is no single “good theology” against which theological statements can be tested.

    I’d like to follow up by looking at a theological argument against evolution, and how it relates to the some faith groups. While there has been considerable argument against intelligent design on theological grounds, the theological objections to evolution have been addressed less frequently.

    In fact, I am frequently told that a belief in evolution really doesn’t have any theological consequences. The Bible tells us that God created the world, science tells us how. The only folks who have a problem with this are a few who incomprehensibly treat the Bible as a science textbook. There are two problems with that. First, there are quite a considerable number of folks who believe that the Bible is true in a sufficiently literal sense that they expect to connect the factual dots of Genesis to scientific data. They are frequently addressed with the rather inadequate statement “You shouldn’t take the Bible so literally!” Second, an excessively literal reading of scripture is not the sole theological problem with the theory of evolution.

    Regarding the first point, the issue is a bit more complex than simply “not taking the Bible literally.” One has to ask just how one is to take it. I’m not going to address this in detail in this post (I talk about it a great deal more in my book When People Speak for God), but at a minimum one needs to specify how someone ought to take the Bible. For example, assuming Genesis 1 is not narrative history (one of the things loosely grouped as literal) what is it? I would suggest that it is liturgy, and that in turn suggests some things about how to understand it.

    But today I want to look at a theological argument in a different form. Instead of arguing that evolution must be incorrect because the Bible makes certain historical claims, one can argue that evolution must be incorrect based on certain theological claims. These theological claims may be derived from the Bible, but the important issue is that they seem to contradict certain things derived from evolution.

    Those who are not religious, or specifically not Christian will find this a strange form of argument, but it is valuable to see how certain people think about these issues in any case, and to realize that there are many for whom evolution poses substantial theological problems, quite apart from the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as narrative history.

    Sin and death is such an issue, and in my experience, it is the key issue. The theological proposition involved states that physical death is the result of human sin, and that had human beings remained loyal to God, there would be no death. Now I’ve discussed this position from the point of view of theodicy in Theodicy: Taking a Stab at Natural Evil. Since some may have a hard time comprehending this argument, it states that evolution cannot be true simply because it involves creatures dying before there were human beings to have committed sin. As I discuss in the referenced post, this is a problem for old earth creationism as much as it is for evolution, and Dembski has proposed an alternate suggestion, that God created physical death as a sort of pre-emptive response to sin, which God’s foreknowledge told him would occur.

    But I’m dealing here solely with those who hold a chronological relationship. In this view human beings are created perfect in a world without death, they rebel against God, and death results. Obviously, for someone who holds that position, evolution cannot possibly be true. I grew up with that view as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church. It took me some time to step away from it, as it can get pretty much ingrained.

    I can now argue against the theology involved, pointing out that Genesis doesn’t actually say that, but in fact suggests that barring the way to the tree of life is a way to prevent human beings from becoming immortal. One can understand spiritual death in many other passages that relate to death. None of that really matters for my purposes here; this particular position demonstrates that there are theological consequences to belief in evolution, and the presence of physical death as a fundamental fact of the universe is one of those.

    Indeed, one key mental exercise I propose to such people is to propose a universe in which there is no death and yet there are things such as “fruit” to eat. How exactly does such a thing work? In particular, choice seems to be a fundamental of the universe and of the Bible, and what exactly is choice without a chance of failure?

    I heard this very recently presented in quite different terms, dealing with God’s care, grace, and gentleness. How could a God who teaches the law of love create by means of such violence? Then there are those promises of a future, peaceful world where “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith Jehovah.” Isaiah 65:25 (ASV). Surely if it’s promised for the future world, it must also have been true of the past!

    Now I personally would compare this approach to a belief in verbal dictation of scripture, for example. People accept this position while ignoring the abundant evidence of different writers, backgrounds, perspectives and so forth throughout. Don’t come to a conclusion of how something ought to be, and then assume that it is that way. The physical evidence for evolution is extremely strong, and for an old earth it is overwhelming, either of which would require substantial modification of this particular doctrine.

    The key thing to remember, however, is that for someone who holds the specific form of this doctrine I cited, there is a serious theological impediment to accepting the theory of evolution, and this is based not necessarily on reading the Bible literally, although the sequence is. You can argue the evidence for evolution as much as you want, but they won’t be moved, because they have a key theological proposition that directly contradicts it.

    I have been interested to note as well that my own view of God is perceived as more distant, because I believe that God honors choice and allows the consequences to take place. In fact, I believe those who suggest I see God as more distant are quite correct. I believe God is distant enough to allow human responsibility to be meaningful.

    This separates me just a bit from the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) approach, since I hold that the discoveries of science can have a substantial impact on one’s theology. They certainly have had such an impact on my own theology. In general, I believe NOMA to be the correct approach, and theology and science must clearly be separated to prevent theology from attempting to predetermine the results of scientific research. (I’m reminded of the notice at my graduate school offering grant money to those who would do research “to support a 6,000 year model of the earth’s history.) But physical reality should have an impact on theology.

  • Bad Theology and ID

    Quite frequently in the debate over intelligent design someone mentions that ID is “bad theology.” That someone might even be me! The problem is that it is not all that easy to delineate just what is bad theology. My bad theology may well be someone else’s belief system. Of course, the reverse may also be true. There isn’t a common set of standards by which someone can judge just what is bad and good in theology when the term is used in a general sense.

    In addition, if ID is bad theology, so what? If the primary issue is whether it belongs in the science classroom, or in peer-reviewed science journals, what difference does it make whether it is good theology or bad? The issue seems irrelevant from that point of view.

    But when we recall that a large part of this battle is political, then we can perhaps understand why the accusation of bad theology is frequently heard. But the question remains of just how one can tell what is good and bad in theology.

    There are two senses in which I believe “bad theology” can justly be referenced in the discussion of ID. There is one overarching point that I must make first, and that is that the simple statement that ID is theology rather than science is more relevant than the quality of the theology involved. One could also say that ID is philosophy, and it would be hard to draw the line in that case. Personally I think it is a theological construct not very cleverly disguised as science, but that is another subject.

    As an aside, it is this variety in the standards, premises, and even processes of theology that differentiate it so much from science and make the teaching of particular religious beliefs so inappropriate for the public school classroom. Teaching about beliefs is another matter. One should ask whether ID behaves like science or theology in this sense.

    The first sense in which ID can be described as bad theology is by showing that it is not internally coherent, i.e. that arguments made in favor of it are inconsistent with one another or are not derived from the stated (or assumed) premises. It is often hard to support such a claim, simply because it’s often hard to tell just what those premises are. It would be inconsistent, for example, to argue that the design of the first living organism requires a supernatural agent, but then claim to have resolved the issue by positing an intelligent natural designer.

    ID advocates rarely do this in one and the same paragraph or speech, but this kind of inconsistency shows up in the difference between the way ID is presented to religious audiences and to secular ones. To the secular audiences the designer is presented as unknown, but potentially natural (as though that would solve anything), while to religious audiences are told (or at least permitted to think) that the designer must be God.

    If ID could be satisfied by a natural designer, then it is either not theology at all or very bad theology. It really bad science, since it proposes an undefined and unbounded entity, and declines to investigate it.

    This type of theological critique requires that the one giving the critique shares some standards with the one critiqued, but only in a minimal way. Both would have to accept, for example, that theology ought to be internally consistent. If that is not the case, this will blend over into my second category.

    Second, one may be asserting that the theology of ID contradicts some important aspect of the theology of a specific group. A simple version of this is pointing out that teaching evolution is not anti-Christian, because there are a substantial number of Christians who accept the theory of evolution. One might point out specific groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, or the United Methodist Church (of which I’m a member).

    The creationist movement in general has been guilty of a good deal of sleight of hand in dealing with groups. When they want there to be lots of creationist, everyone who believes in God is a creationist. They then turn around and say that theistic evolutionists are not really Christians when challenged with the number of Christians who do accept evolution.

    This sort of behavior is illustrated by recent comments by Michael Behe about Kenneth Miller. Miller believes that the universe is designed by God, yet does not believe in intelligent design. Behe wants to claim him on the one hand, but exclude him on the other, because he doesn’t believe quite enough. He believes in design, but not the (alleged) theory of design. (Pim van Meurs discussed this today on the Panda’s Thumb blog.)

    “Bad theology” in this sense, means theology that contradicts key tenets of a particular group or fails to meet the standards of that group in terms of how theology is formed. Since it is so community based, it is clearly only of value in helping to clarify those groups that support, or are likely to support a particular view and those who will not.

    It is in this second sense that theological critique of ID is most important. As I’ve mentioned, it is really irrelevant just how good of theology is contained in an idea that is trying to masquerade as science. A scientist can justifiably say, “So what?” But in the political and PR game, one of the issues is trying to treat the teaching of evolution as an attack on Christianity. It is quite critical, in that case, to be able to point out how many Christians find the theology involved in ID unacceptable.

    In my own area of work, religious education in local churches, this becomes very important as well, because the ID propaganda mill is working quite well. Many churchgoers, even those who accept evolution, are convinced that the whole argument is over whether God is the ultimate designer of the universe. Stated in those terms, they are in favor of intelligent design. When they realize that ID searches for specific evidence of God’s design at the molecular level, they generally become much less attracted to it. It looks like ID is proposing that God is more the designer of some pieces of the universe than of others. Of course the idea that one can prove design of the whole by discovering instances of design in the whole is as old as Paley’s watch, at least.

    The theological critique of ID is important in Christian theology, in which Christian theologians need to look carefully at the implications of ID within their own faith traditions. This is where serious questions of a “god of the gaps” argument arise, for example. Scientists do not, and need not, care whether a particular argument is a god of the gaps argument.

    There are also the very interesting issues of the origin and design of damaging organisms raised by Behe in The Edge of Evolution. I have not read this yet, so I cannot critique it directly, but I will certainly be reading it carefully looking for claims of intelligent design of specific pathogens.

    These sorts of issues will have a great impact on how acceptable ID will be in Christian circles, which in turn has a great impact on the success of various political goals related to such success.

  • Shocker: ID is PR with Little Science

    I was working on writing this up earlier, but go distracted, so now I have the excellent post by PvM on the Panda’s Thumb to reference, thus saving me time and words.

    Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science was quoted in the saying:

    Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science, called the draft standards a “wonderful” blueprint for science education. Wolf, of Winter Haven, said the evolution debate holds little interest to most scientists, who accept it as fact. That’s why the issue did not become controversial during the standards-writing meetings, he said.

    “It’s a PR issue,” he said. “And it’s a religious issue. In the scientific community, it’s not an issue.”

    For most of us, this is a pretty obvious statement. The Panda’s Thumb write-up notes how Crowther carefully dodges the actual statement and responds to something else. He is thus enabled to express a great deal of outrage without proving anything.

    His post is titled Florida Citizens for Science Excommunicate Prominent Scientists from “Scientific Community” For Doubting Darwin, a very pretentious title which misses the point entirely. I’m not certain what he means by “excommunicate” but it doesn’t seem to relate to anything we do in Florida Citizens for Science.

    On the other hand, our officers are quite free to notice the obvious. OK, ID supporters, where is the actual scientific controversy? Where are the scientific papers supporting ID? I see a huge amount of PR, a huge amount of popular literature, a very large number of claims, but the actual scientific controversy doesn’t seem to exist. All we need here is to point out actual scientists engaged in a scientific controversy. Scientists arguing philosophy won’t do. Press releases won’t do it either. What we need is scientists engaging in a scientific dispute.

    What we get, however, is interesting. It shows actual scientists operating within a scientific framework developing and improving the theory of evolution just like they ought to do. Obviously a great deal has been learned since Darwin. If that was not the case, evolution truly would be a theory in crisis. Instead, the very debate that shows a healthy, theory operating under the stresses of scientific discovery, developing and growing as it went along. It shows that rather than some kind of Darwinian conspiracy, as the ID folks suggest, there is healthy, active science, capable of correcting errors and making new discoveries.

    Thanks, Mr. Crowther, for providing evidence for the health of evolutionary theory!

  • Of Colossal Wastes of Time

    Jon Blumenfeld thinks that reconciling religion and science is a colossal waste of time. He says:

    Time for battle stations in the comments section, because I am going to say something that is sure to ruffle some feathers: The attempt to reconcile religion and science in general, and the bible and evolution in particular, is a colossal waste of time.

    He’s apparently particularly concerned that the most recent Reports of the National Center for Science Education contains many articles on the topic.

    I have a suggestion: If you believe reconciling religion and science is a colossal waste of tim, just don’t do it. Hmm. Come to think of it, I don’t think he does. Problem solved. Well, not quite, because apparently he doesn’t like anyone else to take their time doing it. Now I’m not going to bother to defend theism. I rarely do. I’m not even going to suggest that any particular group of people need to read material on religion and science.

    But the NCSE is interested in sound science education in the United States, and particularly in the teaching of evolution (see their about page), and in the United States there are a variety of groups that support that goal. I, for example, am a Christian Bible teacher who supports the teaching of evolution (and the absence of creationism of any variety including ID) in public schools.

    As an advocacy organization, NCSE is simply intelligent to serve all of the constituent groups who are likely to support the cause they advocate–sound science education, and particularly the inclusion of evolution. I know atheists are making a few gains as a percentage of the population right now, but sound science standards for public schools are going to need the support of some religious people.

    I don’t mean to sound cynical, but this is simple, basic politics. The NCSE staff seems to understand it quite well, which is one reason they are very effective. We can go ahead some day and have an argument over religion vs. atheism. But let’s not mix up the battle for sound science education get confused with that issue.

    (HT: The Panda’s Thumb)