On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:07:42 -0400 George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> Ted Davis wrote:
> >
> > I won't try to define a "proper" theology in general, but I will
> comment on
> > a few essentials (IMO) of a "proper Christian" theology, if I may
> say that.
> >
> > I cannot accept as legitimate a theology that is not based on the
> > historical experience of the reality of the resurrection, by which
> I do not
> > mean simply "appearances" in a Bultmannian sense: that the women
> went to the
> > right tomb and found it empty, that Thomas touched the hands and
> side of a
> > body that he had to admit bore the marks of a crucified man, that
> this same
> > person could vanish as suddenly as he appeared, and that he
> appeared to
> > literally hundreds of people at once (ruling out tall tales) and
> finally to
> > a zealous Jew who hated him. *Starting* thus from the
> *historical*
> > experience (I don't give a bad nickle for the claim that we can't
> speak
> > "historically" about this, either it happened in which case it's
> historical
> > or it didn't in which case it isn't) of a "risen" Lord, without
> the reality
> > of which I find the first few months of church history to be most
> > improbable, I move out to locate some of the non-negotiables of
> Christian
> > theology. Minimally, these would include the recognition that the
> God of
> > Jesus raised him from the dead, from which after a few centuries
> of
> > reflection Christians concluded that he must have been God
> himself, or so
> > close to God that he represented God fully; that he had given
> himself
> > sacrificially for all of us (however much we may want to broaden
> their
> > interpretation of it, how can we fault the biblical theologians
> for
> > interpreting him as the lamb of God?); that God must have power
> over nature
> > to accomplish this, and thus that the Jewish belief (arising no
> later than
> > the Maccabeean period) that God had the power to make the world
> from nothing
> > was correct; that (with Paul) our ultimate hope is grounded in
> this same
> > Lord and his God, the maker of heaven and earth.
> >
> > It is on this basis that I cannot describe process theology--at
> least in
> > its "orthodox" variety, in which God has not the power to create
> ex
> > nihilo--as a "proper" theology at all. I see it facing some
> crucial
> > problems and coming up short on all accounts. (1) If Christ is
> not raised,
> > as Paul said, we are to be pitied and we have only false hopes.
> (2) If
> > Christ is raised, then we cannot consistently deny God awesome
> power over
> > nature: God must be the "author" of the "laws" of nature to
> accomplish this.
> > But then God must have power enough to make the world, since the
> giver of
> > laws establishes the properties and powers of matter. (3) Finally
> (as an
> > extra-theological critique), if process is claimed to be more
> "scientific"
> > than orthodoxy because (for example) a process view is more
> conducive to
> > evolution, then let us ask whether process is more "scientific" if
> it cannot
> > accept the clear implication of modern cosmology, to wit, that the
> one world
> > whose existence we can verify--the only world whose existence we
> can ever
> > "test" scientifically--has a finite age and thus appears to have
> been
> > "created". Process dies in my view on the horns of this dilemma:
> to affirm
> > that Christ is risen in the only sense that counts is to accept
> God's power
> > as at least very great, if not "omnipotent", which goes against
> the
> > fundamental assumption of process, that God can only persuade and
> cannot
> > create; whereas to affirm that process is "scientific" is to
> accept the
> > implications of modern cosmology, which also goes against the
> fundamental
> > assumption. Resurrection and creation (even apart from scripture)
> cry out
> > for a God that process cannot accept.
>
> Ted -
> I agree with virtually all that you say but an absolutely
> essential aspect is
> missing. The one God raised from the dead, and with whom God is
> identified, is the
> crucified. Speaking about the resurrection without the cross (& I
> realize of course
> that you aren't _denying_ the cross) inevitably results in bad
> theology. If we take the
> cross with full seriousness it means that we have to be able to
> speak of God together
> with suffering and death, and in fact to begin our understanding of
> who God is with the
> cross and resurrection. Classical theology made valiant efforts to
> do this but was
> continually hampered by presuppositions of a timeless and immutable
> divine nature.
> Process theology is able to speak of God's participation in
> suffering, an
> insight which it owes at least in part to what Whitehead called "the
> Galilean origins of
> Christianity." That is one significant advantage it has over
> traditional philosophical
> theism.
> "Process theology" narrowly defined does have serious
> problems. It cannot speak
> of _creatio ex nihilo_ (& thus of genuine resurrection) & while it
> can speak of God's
> participation in suffering, it sees the cross as simply one example
> of that rather than
> as a unique divine act. But as I've noted, classical theism is also
> defective. What is
> needed is a fully trinitarian theology which is both able able to
> speak adequately about
> creation and about the Incarnation as part of God's own life. This
> is exactly the sort
> of thing that theologians like Barth, Pannenberg, Moltmann, Juengel,
> Jenson, and LaCugna
> have been doing for the past 70 years - though IMHO more attention
> in this area still
> needs to be given to creation.
> Shalom,
> George
>
I was going to let Ted's statement stand as a reply to the matter of a
"proper theism" until I realized that he is speaking of a proper
Christian theism. Since theism does not have to be Christian, let me back
up a step. I note that I am dealing with what I hold to be a necessary
understanding in contemporary terms, for there was theism in Old
Testament times without philosophical sophistication. It is also found in
contemporary views in various quarters.
A proper theism requires a Creator who is outside of creation. Only in
this way can there be _creatio ex nihilo_. To differentiate this view
from deism, the Creator must also be Providence, in charge of "day to
day" operations. This may involve strict determinism, as in Islam, or
human freedom, as in most Judeo-Christian views.
If God is outside his creation, he is outside of the space-time
requirement imposed on creatures. Since our best scientific understanding
requires a beginning to space-time, we clearly cannot impose that
beginning on the Creator. Could he have his own time, if not space? If
so, how can we characterize it? It seems to be that infinite, linearly
finite and circularly finite exhaust the possibilities. The last requires
infinite recurrences of creation, which fit Hinduism and pantheism, but
hardly theism. If linearly finite, then the question must be what got God
started, with infinite regress the apparently necessary consequence. If
divine time is infinite, the immediate question is what God was doing
before the creation, along with why he waited so long, for the past must
be infinite unless we return to finite divine time. Only if all time
began with creation, which excludes temporality to the deity, can we have
a reasonable understanding of the matter.
Switching to Christian theism, in addition to these problems, the notions
of divine time do not meet the requirements George places on the deity so
that he can be changed by the crucifixion. To be changed by the
crucifixion requires more than a connection or involvement in creation,
for the Godhead must be within time, and hence space-time, for this
temporal change to occur. I note that the Word became flesh, entering his
creation. It does not claim that the Father or the Spirit became
incarnate. Men have tried to meet the complications of this by claiming
that God entered the being of a purely human Jesus, or that an aspect of
God functioned within a human body, or that Jesus was not fully human
(monotheletism, e.g.). But a careful analysis of scripture seems to
demand that Jesus Christ is true God and true man simultaneously and
inextricably. This cannot be explained, though its consequences can be
brought out.
George wants to focus on the crucifixion as if it were almost the whole.
However, were it not the infinite God and the fully human totally
combined, possible only with the virgin birth, the sacrifice would have
sufficed for only one redemption, not for all who believe. Were it not
for his sinless life, his death would have been the result of his sin.
Were it not for his resurrection, we would have no hope of anything more
than avoidance of hell rather than eternal life. Were it not for the
ascension, we would not have the Advocate at the right hand of the
Father, nor the Comforter with us. It is a package deal--incarnate,
sinless, crucified, risen, ascended.
I think I see why George and other Lutheran focus on the crucifixion:
their sacramentalism. If partaking of the eucharistic elements provides
"the forgiveness of all your sins" (a phrase in the liturgy which I do
not find in scripture), then this focus is necessary. But the Lutheran
hermeneutic is not the only one. "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son
cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7) is as precious to
non-sacramentalists.
But to back up, to make a temporal event alter the eternal Father
requires that somehow the Godhead is restricted by time, which demands
that the entire Trinity be a part of our universe. Although non-Christian
theists find it difficult to impossible to have one person enter the
creation, to make the Godhead so restructed destroys the possibility of
being the Creator. Indeed, I contend that the changing deity is the
result of making God in the image of time-bound humanity. This is hardly
strange, since it has been done often. Ineed, I think it was Augustine
who first noted time as something to think about. It is a rationalization
to claim that the rejection of change in the Father exalts Greek being
over becoming, wherever the primacy of that notion comes from.
In summing up, a proper theism recognizes a timeless Creator outside of
his creation but in total and eternal control thereof. Neglecting his
control produces deism. Since timelessness implies changelessness, making
him change produces rejection of his being outside of the creation. This
requires some form of pantheism, though this may not be recognized and
when pointed out may be denied. However, I would like to see a
philosophical analysis that demonstrates that a changing God can be the
Creator.
How, then, does one face the Old Testament declarations of God's changing
attitudes and actions? Very simply: they are the way things look to human
beings. To shift to the present, when I trusted Christ, I was forgiven,
something I had not had previously. Now I live in hope, anticipating
becoming like him, though no one who observes me will consider me
glorified. But Paul tells me (Romans 8:28f) that I'm already glorified,
with the inference (Ephesians 1:4) that it was so (my temporal language)
eternally or, as more commonly phrased, from eternity past. Hallelujah!
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 12 2000 - 16:57:47 EDT