Earlier trhis month, George posted:
> " Independent natural theology (i.e., that which is developed without
reference to revelation) is 1) biblically marginal, and 2)
dangerous....."
and I replied:
> That seems pretty obvious. Do you understand Whitehead/Griffin to have
done this? From my studying of them so far I think Whitehead may be so
accused, but not Griffin. But I may be wrong.
George answered:
"I don't know that it's obvious, since developments and uses of such
natural theologies have been a thriving industry, especially since the
17th century. But Whitehead doesn't make this error - his mistake, I
think, is farther down the line. Toward the end of _Process and Reality_
he says:
"The history of theistic philosophy exhibits various stages of
combination of these three diverse ways of entertaining the
problem. There is, however, in the Galilean origin of
Christianity yet another suggestion which does not fit
very well with any of the three main strands of thought.
It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless
moralist, or the unmoved mover. It dwells upon the tender
elements in the world, which slowly and in quietness operate
by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a
kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules nor is it
unmoved; also it is a little oblivious as to morals. It
does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in
the immediate present."
And a little later he refers to God as "the great
companion - the fellow sufferer who understands."
The influence of the story of Jesus, and of a type of theology of
the
cross, on the development of Whitehead's picture of God is, I think,
fairly
clear from this. So he isn't pursuing a natural theology entirely
independent
of revelation. & I think to some extent that's true of many process
theologians.
Where the problem comes, however, is in then seeing this picture
of
God as a general truth, of which Jesus is one example - a very important
example perhaps but not a unique and indispensable revelation of God."
George -- I could not find that Whitehead quote. Could you give me a
citation? I understand your comments here, and tentatively, at least,
must agree with them.
George continued: "Eberhard Juengel states the basic problem of natural
theology - which I think is typified by Whitehead - as follows:
"What natural theology represents perversely as truth is the
claim of the most highly specific event of the Word of God to general
validity. And the perversion of this truth consists in the reversal of
the claim to general validity of this highly specific event to assertion
of a generality to which then the unique event is subsumed as a special
case of a comprehensive relation." (If this sounds clumsy it's because
it's my translation & I haven't tried to make it elegant English.)
I.e., theological statements ultimately have to be referred back to
Christ crucified, not to some general truth about the suffering of God.
It took me a little while to unpack Juengel's statement, but when I did
it makes good sense.
Thanks much, George.
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 29 2001 - 11:42:29 EDT