Re: Crosses, books, and deism; a double irony and the case of Mr
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:06:11 -0500
Ted Davis wrote:
.............................................
> There is a double irony in this story, related to the word, "deism" (which
> has been used at least since the late 17th century), which is misused today
> in at least two ways (again, ironically) by two groups with opposing
> theological views. First, when someone like Howard Van Till advances the
> notion of creation's functional integrity/formational and functional
> economy, he is accused by some conservatives of promoting deism. This is
> just wrong: Howard's unflinching belief in the empty tomb, to go no futher,
> flies in the face of real deism. One cannot believe in a God who acts in
> history and have the label stick: constitutional monarchs do what we tell
> them, not what they want to. Second, when someone like me speaks about God
> actually bringing the universe into existence, when he speaks metaphorically
> (how else can he speak of such things?) of there being a time before there
> was a time, when God in Godself willed the world into being (as God
> continues to will it in being), or when he confesses his belief that the
> disciples went to the right tomb and found it empty, he is accused of deism
> by some liberals (this has happened at Templeton gatherings) who actually
> think that a God who can act "outside" the ordinary course of nature is ipso
> facto a deist's God--a ridiculous position, given the nature of genuine
> deism as I have been explaining it.
>
> Neither group would recognize the genuine article if it appeared before
> them. To see it, have a look at Mr Jefferson's bible: a slim volume
> containing the ethical teachings of Jesus and little more. Conservatives
> take note: real deism rejects a God who died to redeem us from sin.
> Liberals take note: real deism rejects a God who raised Christ bodily from
> the dead. The double irony here is that each group remakes "deism" into a
> label suitable to its own purposes. People like Howard and I, who believe
> in a God who acts within and without the category of the natural, who
> believe in a God who redeems while creating, and who believe that we
> crucified the same God who knew us before the foundation of the world, catch
> it both ways. On the one hand, we're "deists" because we think God creates
> mainly through evolution; on the other hand, we're "deists" because we think
> the world is not eternal, that God does not evolve with it, and that God
> really raised Christ from the dead. Well, if that's deism, I'm glad of the
> company.
Ted -
Carrying this a bit further -
One common use of the term "deism" is belief in a deity who created & started
the world machinery in the beginning but then simply leaves it alone to run by itself.
That's the way Barbour uses the word in his typology of theologies & models of divine
action in _Religion and Science_, referring to "the inactive God of deism." Whether
this accurately describes ideas of 18th century deists you can say far better than I,
but I think it is this sense of "deism" which makes some people think that they can
label those who believe in things like functional integrity of creation (FIC) as deists.
That labelling is wrong, but it will continue to be made as long as there is
not adequate emphasis by FIC advocates that they understand God to be continually active
through the processes of nature in a lawlike & scientifically understandable way. This
does not demand any particular theology of divine action (e.g., primary & secondary
causation) but I think that FIC _must_ clearly be accompanied by some such theology,
even if only a tentative one. Otherwise it's understandable that the phrase "functional
integrity" will suggest (though wrongly) to some people that God doesn't need to do
anything after t = 0.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/