Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat May 26 2001 - 12:30:10 EDT

  • Next message: Vandergraaf, Chuck: "miraculous healing [was: RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]]"

    "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:

    > Robert Miller asks:
    >
    > > If we didn't believe in miracles
    > > why would we pray for healing, or a job, or any number of things that we
    > > ask God to intervene on?
    >
    > The answer to this question hangs on the specific meanings of "miracles" and
    > "intervene" as they are here used. Do these terms entail the idea of what
    > Griffin identifies as traditional _supernaturalism_ (God breaks the
    > continuity of the creaturely cause/effect chain; God overpowers creaturely
    > systems to bring about an outcome that creaturely action could not have
    > accomplished)? If so, then Griffin would object and say that that is
    > precisely the supernaturalism that must be abandoned is the science/religion
    > warfare is to be resolved.
    >
    > However, Griffin fully believes that intercessory prayer is wholly
    > appropriate and that God does act "variably" in the world to bring about
    > outcomes different from what may have otherwise occurred. One of Griffin's
    > goals is to articulate a concept of divine action that is both variable (so
    > that, for instance, it can constitute a response to prayer) and
    > non-coercive. Traditional supernaturalism includes the option of coercive
    > divine action, which process theology finds objectionable.
    >
    > Bottom line: If I have read Griffin correctly, he believes that you may
    > indeed pray for healing, a job, etc., but that in so doing you should not
    > expect God to act _coercively_ in response. Rather, you should expect God to
    > act "persuasively" in calling upon the creaturely system to effect one
    > possible outcome (the desired one) rather than some other (undesirable) one.
    > Griffin does not believe in miracles in the sense of coercive supernatural
    > interventions, but he does believe in the appropriateness and effectiveness
    > of intercessory prayer.

            Whether we believe that miracles happen or not, we have no business
    _demanding_ that God heal (or whatever) by miraculous means. It isn't our place
    to tell God how to do God's job. God can perform a miracle if God wants to, but
    both our experience of the world and belief in God's granting of integrity to
    creation should lead us to _expect_ that in the vast majority of cases God's
    work of healing will take place through the course of natural processes (in
    which I include the technological application of those processes by medical art
    & science). & in fact that is the best way of understanding the traditional
    practice of anointing the sick with oil together with prayer for healing: Olive
    oil in biblical times was considered a medicine & today it serves as a symbol of
    all medicines.

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Dialogue"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 26 2001 - 12:31:39 EDT