Glenn - Appreciate your summary. A couple of comments on your remarks which I paste
together from a couple of posts. (Is there a reason I got no "Waco, Day 2" - other
than perhaps an inadvertent hit on the delete button?)
glenn morton wrote:
.....................................
> As I mentioned in my report, one christian stood by the elevator in order to
> tell my agnostic friend Frank, that Schaeffer was not the best Christian
> apologetics has to offer. Unfortunately, my feeling is that Schaeffer just
> may have been the best and when exposed, it is an embarassment to look in
> the mirror.
Is it possible that what the conference displayed was the weakness of the whole
approach of evidentialist apologetics & its implicit presupposition of independent
natural theology? (As you may guess, that's a rhetorical question.) N.B., of course I
don't mean that an apologetic, or theology in general, should make no appeal to evidence
at all! I refer again to my paper at last year's ASA meeting, which is (I'm told) to be
in the September _Perspectives_, as at least a pointer to an alternative.
The inevitability of the result seems to have been built in because of the
absence (from what I could tell from your report) of professional theologians - or of
any I recognized. "Of course - it's a science conference." Exactly, & so what it'll
produce is science &/or philosophy of science - & perhaps ill-advised attempts to jump
the gap to theology. (That without intending disrespect for Christian philosophers -
but that ain't the same enterprise.)
..........................
[From Day 3 _re_ N. Murphy]
> She also thought that Christianity could get along without the soul or other
> spirits. In the question and answer session, one guy asked how would Julius
> Caesar be resurrected if there were no soul. She responded consistently,
> that the Bible spoke of the resurrection of the body. [I do wish my son had
> been there to remind me of this. When speaking with him about this talk, and
> telling him that someone thought we could get along without the dualism, he
> cited Jesus saying, that which is born of the spirit is spirit and that which is flesh
> is flesh. He then looked at me and said, 'That is dualism. How can you possibly > avoid it in Scripture?" I must confess to be at a loss to answer him and wish someone >
had raised this with her.-grm]
Biblical passages about flesh & spirit have often been misunderstood just
because of the presupposition of some sort of dualism between 2 different kinds of
"stuff". "Flesh" in Scripture of course sometimes does refer directly to meat, the
stuff we & other animals are made of. But it can also mean humanity in its weakness &
vulnerability, especially in contrast to the power of God (e.g., II Chron.32:8,
Jer.17:5). Paul's flesh/spirit dichotomy is essentially that of humanity turned away
from & separated from God & humanity in the proper relationship with God. The contrast
between the works of the flesh & those of the spirit in Gal.5:18-23 isn't between
material & immaterial thingsbut between different ways of living in our total humanity.
John, from which the passage your son cited (actually in reverse) comes, is
somewhat different but related, though here the realm of that which is separated from
God is usually called "the world." Just before saying "that which is born of the flesh
is flesh &c" Jesus says that the new birth is "of water and Spirit", a reference to
baptism. & Jn.6 has Jesus say both "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you" AND "It is the spirit that gives life; the
flesh is useless." One can combine this sort of sacramental realism with body-soul
dualism, as traditional RC theology, e.g., has done, but such dualism isn't required by
the Gospel of John.
Having said that, I have to add that I think there are some problems with a
consistently monist view. In particular, it isn't clear how one can speak meaningfully
about "the mind of God", God's "thoughts" &c in a way which allows God independence
[modulo the Incarnation] from the material world if thought requires a physical brain.
I've talked briefly with Nancey about this & am not convinced there's a good answer if
one doesn't allow some sort of "mind" without a physical brain. But that's more a
philosophical issue which arises largely from my (& other physicists') semi-platonism
rather than an issue of biblical theology.
Also - though this hasn't been its intent, insistence on "immortality of the
soul" has, in practice, meant a de-emphasis of the resurrection. Why do we need a
resurrection if our souls - often understood as our "real" selves - are already in
heaven?
Shalom,
George
--George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 28 2000 - 09:58:11 EDT