From: Rich Blinne (richblinne@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 12:34:56 EDT
----Original Message Follows----
From: PASAlist@aol.com
To: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
CC: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: "charismatic" theologies and science
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:06:33 EDT
>As Jon mentioned most charismatics are not sufficiently educated
>scientifically to espouse evolution, and are therefore generally YECs. At
>the same time, there are some who are both charismatic and believers in
>evolution, such as Denis Lamoureaux who has one Ph.D in theology and
>another one in evolution (of the jaw in particular). It is primarily a
>matter of education, but at the same time it is my experience that those
>with a fundamentalistic theology who are more experience-oriented in their
>Christianity (which is more common amongst charismatics) are not as prone
>to be upset by interpretations of Genesis which do not hold to a rigid
>literalistic view. I think this goes back to whether God or a book is
>ultimate for them on a practical level. I know that John Whitcomb said that
>his next priority after promoting creation science was to attack the
>tongues movement. So, there seems to be some kind of correlation between
>openness/closedness to evolution and openness/closedness to charismatic
>gifts.
There are two strains within charismatic theology (or other more
experience-oriented theologies) that work against each other with respect to
their attitude towards science.
The first which goes against science is the greater stress on first causes
over second causes. Science lives in the second causes realm. A "God of
the gaps" appeals to the direct agency of God in the affairs of His
creation. Knowlege is immediate through the Spirit and knowledge mediated
by the creation is more suspect.
The second which ironically is a consequence of the first goes in the other
direction. This is the belief that Scripture while inerrant and
authoritative is not the exclusive locus of knowledge. Careful theologians
in the charismatic camp such as Wayne Grudem are quick to point out the
knowledge derived outside of Scripture is subordinate to Scripture. In
Grudem's case, he points out that latter-day prophesy is not as
authoritative nor of the same kind than prophesy found in Scripture. This
is no different than the qualification usually made by scientists who are
also Christians. Both charismatics and scientists hold to the Augustianian
notion of all knowledge meets at the top regardless of the source of it.
So, charismatics by and large are thus ambivalent to science. Some
anti-charismatics, however, can be hostile to science. The source of this
is a consequence of an extreme form of the doctrine of the sufficiency of
Scripture. Since Scripture is sufficient both (naturalistic) science and
the latter-day charismatic gifts are adding to what God has forbidden us to
add to. This is the source I believe of the correlation that Paul saw.
This correlation is not necessary, however. For example, the best-known
anti-charistmatic polemic of the twentieth century was B.B. Warfield's
Counterfeit Miracles. Yet, Warfield also was not anti theistic evolution.
My own convictions line up with Warfield both on science and the charismatic
gifts. This split difference is not common within the Reformed portion of
evangelical Christianity, however. (I speaking to this because this is the
group I have the most personal experience.) You either get the Presbyterian
Church in America (PCA) which for the most part hostile to both science and
the charismatic gifts and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) which is
tolerant to both. This correlation is also historic. Back during the First
Great Awakening those who were more receptive to what was called at the time
"experimental relgion" such as Jonathan Edwards also practiced science.
Edwards did a study on the balloon spider as a teenager and died being a
voluntary subject to the smallpox vaccine. (It is this receptiveness to
things empirical that makes the writing of the Puritans, and Edwards in
particular, popular amongst charismatics.)
In conclusion, it would be reasonable to expect more hostility to science
from anti-charismatics than from charismatics. Nevertheless, both groups
are diverse enough that that factor alone will not predict whether an
individual in the group will be pro- or anti- science (with myself being one
of those outliers).
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 30 2002 - 17:24:45 EDT