LH: "I've read a number of Christian authors on this topic, and
there seems to be two broad perspectives: [1] emphasizing that
God is active in every natural event (with the same power as in
miraculous events); [2] emphasizing the fact that creation is
something _other_ than God (while still being contingent upon God
for continued existence).
The second view causes worries about deism and an overly
mechanistic view of creation; the first view causes worries about
"monotheistic pantheism" and a confusion of the different types
of God's Will."
I find it interesting that you present these two perspectives -
which are not the ones I'd have chosen. This is because although
I hold to [1], I also hold to [2]! I would say that the doctrine
of "creation" leads to [2] and that the doctrine of "providence"
leads to [1]. However, not to dwell on that at present ...
LH: "In one sense, this topic is tangential to the discussion of
evolution. Young-earth creationism, progressive creationism, and
evolutionary creationism can each be formulated under each
perspective.
In other sense, however, this topic is very important to the
discussion of evolution. When arguments for YEC, PC, or EC are
formulated exclusively under one perspective or the other,
arguments over terminology often result!"
This is helpful. Certainly, I find these more fundamental
perspectives on God's relationship to His creation relevant to
thinking about origins.
LH: "Since David Tyler has already expressed his preference for
the first prespective, I'd like to get his (or anyone else's)
reaction to a very well-written piece which (IMO) emphasizes the
second perspective:"
Here goes ... and I'll cite "Franklin" when pulling sections from
Loren's post.
---------------------
Franklin: "The doctrine that God is the creator of heaven and
earth is the _Magna_Carta_ of Christian liberal arts. ... The
confession that God is "the maker of heaven and earth" implies
that Christian higher education must include considerable
exposure to the range of scholarship in the arts and sciences."
Agreed. If I were writing this, I would want to add something
about the doctrine of the Fall here. Man's mind has been
affected by his broken relationship with God. This alienation
is a recurring theme in the writings (and in the other products
of the liberal arts) of scholars.
Franklin: "The doctrine of creation is far richer than the mere
claim that God "started up" the world a long time ago. God's
creative activity continues in the present, and it will continue
in the future."
The first sentence is, I think, a comment on Deism - and is, of
course, necessary. The second sentence flags up the issue of
"creation and providence" which has received considerable
attention on the reflector. People who represent perspective
[1], come in two groups. Some (including myself), whilst
referring to God's power always being exercised in relation to
his creation, recognise a real difference between creation and
providence. There is continuity in the power and activity of
God, but there is also discontinuity because God's works of
creation are finished and his works of providence continue.
Others will emphasise continuity of natural law (providence) to
the extent that the same laws are used by God to bring into being
the entities He has purposed.
Franklin: "... we may say that each created thing has its own
existence and its own capacity to act upon other created things;
this created existence and these created powers, while totally
dependent upon God, are distinct realities from God's existence
and powers."
Coming from perspective [1], it is probably useful to say that
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
Franklin: "The second point in the doctrine of creation is worth
some detailed attention. The second point may be called the
"secular" moment in Christianity. That is, each created thing
has its own identity and can truly interact with other creatures.
This "secular" dimension of the Christian doctrine of creation
is one (but only one) of the primary causes of the development
of physical science in Europe. Christian scholars in late
medieval Europe drew an important conclusion from their doctrine
of creation: because God created each entity with its own
integrity and power (this power being dependent on God while
remaining numerically distinct from him) and because these
entities can truly interact, a science of "causes between created
things" was possible."
Well might Franklin use quotation marks around the word
"secular". I think he realises he is treading on dangerous
ground! This secularising tendency goes back to Thomas Aquinas
who separated the realm of the Spirit from the realm of Nature.
In the latter, he followed the Greek tradition of maintaining the
supremacy of reason - effectively denying the effects of the Fall
in the "secularised" disciplines. To his credit, Aquinas
referred to primary causes and secondary causes - and this was
almost certainly a factor in the development of science. I would
prefer to emphasise the doctrine of providence and the
expectation that God does not uphold his creation in an
irrational way. Franklin's quote is too short to know if he
would make much of this.
Franklin: "Several important implications for education flow from
the existence of this "secular" moment within the Christian
doctrine of creation. Christians are free to accept truth about
the world no matter what its source -- even if that source makes
no appeal to religious considerations, as in the case, for
example, of physics or sociology. ... We may even say that there
is nothing in principle to prevent one from learning philosophy
from the pagan Greeks, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists."
This is where I am finding myself seriously diverging from
Franklin. He appears to be developing an argument which leads
to autonomy. Of course we can learn from people who differ from
us, and from people outside the Christian Way - that is not a
point at issue here. The question for those involved with
Christian liberal arts relates to the presuppositions utilised
by the various scholars being studied. Students need to be alert
to these presuppositions and to recognise that whether they be
cultural, religious, or philosophical, no one is free from them.
Perhaps the greatest need in our own day is to recognise that
science itself is riddled with presuppositions that reveal it to
be a human activity - deeply affected by cultural, religious and
philosophical traditions.
Franklin: "... The doctrine of creation entails that a Christian
education should encourage the student not only to study the
liberal arts in their secular autonomy but also to investigate
their divine source and telos."
The reference to "secular autonomy" is significant. I would
expect a Christian liberal arts scholar to be showing that such
autonomy is a modern myth.
Franklin: "By using the word "secular," I hardly wish to affirm
a rigid dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. Within the
total doctrine of creation, all things are sacred, having their
source and destiny in God. Thus even a "secular" field such as
law can be a sacred activity if done in a spirit of worship and
commitment to Jesus Christ."
I find this fuzzy. Doing law in "a spirit of worship and
commitment to Jesus Christ" is only part of the way forward. I
seem to remember reading Phillip Johnson on "law" - he can
certainly contribute something here.
Franklin: "... By the term "secular" I also wish to indicate that
our primary source for chemical knowledge, for example, is
experimentation and not revelation."
But this is also very fuzzy. Chemistry is not a matter of
revelation - but the presuppositions of chemical science are.
LH: "In this article, Franklin goes on to discuss the impact of
the doctrines of Sin and Redemption on Christian scholarship, and
describes the distinctives of Christian liberal arts education."
What puzzles me is - why it does not come out in this earlier
part of his article?
Hoping this contributes something by way of clarification.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***