My long term hope is that these discussions will lead us toward more
adequate concepts of both "nature" and "the divine." (I will try to employ
Ray's vocabulary here.) Is "nature" missing something (some key formational
capabilities, for instance) that "the divine" must occasionally compensate
for by irruptive, overpowering intervention? Has "nature" been fully gifted
by "the divine" to accomplish divine intentions? Is "nature" then all the
more accountable to "the divine" for its employment of all of its
creaturely gifts for the accomplishment of the good intended by "the
divine" in giving being to "nature"?
Howard Van Till