From: Joel Cannon (jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 15:00:23 EDT
In being so candid in front of a predominantly evangelical crowd,
Howard has once again shown that he is not afraid to unfurl a red flag
in the middle of a crowd of bulls. I anticipate my inbox will be quite
full when I return tomorrow. Ironically, in rejecting a tenet of
the evangelical Christianity held by most on the list, Howard in at
least one way may be closer to biblical Christianity than many
evangelicals.
I understand that the terms natural and supernatural are terms that grew
out of the enlighentment (I believe supernatural was unknown before
that) with the goal of placing boundaries on God's (or what could be
God's) activity. The terms imply a quasi-deistic world in which God
is usually not active, but occasionally intervenes to set things
right. Similarly, I suggest that our enlightenment conciousness has
affected our view of miracles---we see miracles as "supernatural
acts." (what else could we mean?). In some sense, like Creationists we
read the words of the Bible as if they must fit one-for-one our
contemporary meaning. My understanding is that there was not such
distinction in the mind of the Palestinian Jews of Jesus' time
although they did speak of what is translated as "mighty works." (I
recognize the word "miracles" is in the new testament. The question is
what did it mean in the context in which it was written?)
If this is the case, Howard, in rejecting supernaturalism, may be in
an ironic sense closer to the unified mindset of the Jewish (including
the early Christian) people. For both there is no distinct boundary
between God being active and not-active. However, speaking with all
the authority of a 21st century physicist about what 1rst century Jews
thought (not to mention what is in the mind of another 21st century
physicist) it seems to me that it could be said that the 1st century
Jew saw miracles in everything (although some acts like turning the
water to wine or healing people) were particulary powerful, Howard
sees what he might call the wonder of natural processes working in
everything (he sees miracles in the sense most people understand in
nothing).
> Howard,
>
> Given your generalization in the name of consistency, what is your theology
> of Jesus's birth, death and resurrection? Were those supernatural, and if
> not, how would you articulate an overall Christian theology? Whatever
> other signs and miracles in scripture and redemptive history we can
> "theologize" in various ways, to most of us it seems impossible to get
> around the resurrection as being a "plain fact."
>
> Very respectfully,
> Douglas Hayworth
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 21 2003 - 14:49:45 EDT