Comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of george murphy
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:15 AM
To: Robert Schneider
Cc: Shuan Rose; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: A matter of trust?(Or why YEC persists)
Robert Schneider wrote:
Dear Shuan, I agree that a theology of creation that is explicitly
biblical in expression is needed, but I would add to that the fact that many
good theological expositions are not larded with references to passages of
Scripture, and this is true of recent creation theologies; I would include
Howard Van Till's among them. Outside of ASA members, quite a few people
are working on theologies of creation. One of the interesting developments
to my mind is the recovery of a Trinitarian theology of creation. Among
evangelicals Jurgen Moltmann has done this, in _God in Creation_ and other
writings; among Roman Catholics Denis Edwards, a disciple of Karl Rahner, in
_The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology. Others working in or writing
on theology of creation and evolution include Nancey Murphy, Arthur
Peacocke, Ted Peters, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Ian Barbour, and there are
several others. There are quite a few people representating a variety of
Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant (including evangelical) perspectives.
I'm aware of how important it is for Christians to see the Bible in their
theologies, and especially for those Christians who want you to "show me
where it is in the Bible." But theology is rational reflection on the
content of revelation, and it always goes beyond the biblical text to
develop its implications in the light of nature and human experience. Part
of the task is not only to help Christian learn how to read and interpret
the Bible intelligently, but to learn and understand what role theology
plays in the articulation of faith. I think there are many Christians who
love and depend on the Bible but have hardly even a rudimentary knowledge
and understanding of theology. That vacuum can lead to great
misunderstandings or ignorances of basic Christian doctrine. I was
astonished, for example, to discover how many of the conservative and
fundamentalist college students in my "Science and Faith" course, most of
whom would have classified themselves as YECs, were Gnostics (though they
didn't know it). I had to introduce them to the doctrine of the Incarnation
and its implications for understanding Christ and creation, because it was
clear many of them had no real grasp of it. I think YEC flourishes
because its proponents are very effective at marketing their product and
putting down the product they are trying to outsell. There are a lot of
voices who speak a different language of God and creation, and we who speak
this language need to find ways to get the message out without playing their
game.
Dear Bob,
Thanks for the info. I would add Bernard Anderson' book , Creation in
the Old Testament, to the list of good creation theologies . ( See
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1985/v42-2-booknotes2.htm for a review).
You are certainly right that a major problem , especially in evangelical
churches, is that folks practice a naive bibliolatry.They will say, " Just
give me the Word of God( in the King James Version-The version that Jesus
used). I don't need any of that theological stuff". Of course, as you have
found out, that way lies error.
It does seem that YECs have won the marketing game hands down. One
reason is of course that their message is crude and simplistic("God said it,
I believe it, that settles it". ) Also their way of mischaracterizing their
opponents ("From goo to you by way of the zoo" is Gish's pithy definition of
evolution.) The sophisticated treatments by Moltmann et al., are not going
to get very far among folks used to that level of "exposition", if thats the
word!
It seems to me that the problems represented by YECs arise not
simply from the use of scripture but from an overemphasis on Gen.1-3 and, in
particular, insistence on starting with those chapters. If we start there,
especially in a cultural climate so heavily influenced by naive ideas about
the Bible, then our ideas about creation will congeal around all the old
familiar notions. At best we'll become concordists & at worst YECs. If we
read other texts that are relevant to creation first, and if we become aware
from the whole of scripture of the variety of literary types that the Bible
contains, then we can go back to the Genesis accounts and avoid those
pitfalls. This is why in _The Trademark of God_ I started with the exodus &
Second Isaiah & then moved to Genesis.
Shalom,
George
Dear George,
I agree that we have to get out of Genesis 1 to 3. Witness, for example,
the earnest but (to me) unedifying debate about the Bulls and the Bears.I
have great respect for the participants, but I think the search for a good
creation theology needs to begin elsewhere. There is a variety of
literature on creation and indeed differing ideas of creation in the
Bible.Lets explore ideas of creation means in the Psalms., say:
Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the midst of the
earth. 13Thou didst divide the sea by thy might; thou didst break the heads
of the dragons on the waters. 14Thou didst crush the heads of Leviathan,
thou didst give him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. 15Thou
didst cleave open springs and brooks; thou didst dry up ever-flowing
streams. 16Thine is the day, thine also the night; thou hast established the
luminaries and the sun. 17Thou hast fixed all the bounds of the earth; thou
hast made summer and winter. (Psalms 74:12-17)
I have a feeling that there will be few calls for a concordist
interpretation of this passage!
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 22 2002 - 21:09:16 EDT