Re: divine "intervention" (was: science & theology, part 1 resend)

Bill Dozier wrote:

"I...am not doubting your orthodoxy."

You would if you knew.

"...All the definitions of "intervene" I can find have the
connotation of involvement in something in which one was previously
uninvolved:...
3 : to come...between by way of...modification...."

I'd say your definition #3 (the root meaning of the word) fits: The picture is that, unless God intervened, the world would not do his will. Specifically, God inserts himself between a given event and what would normally be the next event to change behavior from undesirable to desirable.

Several months ago some of us discussed whether God "forces" or only "persuades." I think we'd all prefer that God restrict himself to persuasion, but I concluded then that force was necessary, at least in certain (presumably rare) instances. Here I use "intervene" instead of "force," but the meaning is the same.

It's not useful to get bogged down with definitional precision when we don't know with any precision what we're talking about. But a distinction between breaking nature's rules and acting within those rules can be useful. To contrast "intervene" with "act" is arbitrary and certainly not the only acceptable solution.

"> (2) the world's capabilities are limited,

Are they limited or wholly dependent on God?"

The world may be wholly dependent on God in some remote but fundamental sense--i.e., it may vanish without God as Sustainer. Furthermore, the world's capabilities are equal to what God wants them to be, so that the world can do what he wants, although possibly not without being forced.

However, my theological perspective requires that the world to all appearances be independent of God. And I believe that the world truly is as independent of him as it is possible for it to be, consistent with his objectives.

A consequence is that one who knows God perceives (dimly) God's predominantly behind-the-scenes actions, but one who does not know him sees only nature.

"Most of the Christians that I hear talk about such things seem to keep
this belief compartmentalized....
I think they get
into "gaps"-type thinking even though it's not part of their declared
theology.
 If you read their literature or listen
to their lectures, they rant about godless processes and
uniformitarianism. In part, what they are rejecting is that God was not
doing the creating."

IMO those who seek to buttress faith with gaps do so in an attempt to assure themselves that God had to be involved. Their personal theologies see God as acting everywhere all the time, but they feel battered by and insecure in the face of naturalistic explanations, so they call upon gaps for bottom-line bolstering.

Few with scientific sophistication would lean hard on gaps, because history teaches that a given gap may disappear. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that there are true gaps--phenomena that are not amenable to scientific investigation and hence that will never have valid scientific explanations. Certain purely spiritual phenomena constitute the best examples, and probably some physical phenomena qualify as well. But my belief in God is related only in a secondary, derived way to my belief in the existence of true gaps: The spiritual phenomena came first; I recognized them as gaps afterwards.

Don

 
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Bill Dozier<mailto:wddozier@mac.com>
  To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
  Cc: asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:50 PM
  Subject: divine "intervention" (was: science & theology, part 1 resend)

  I found this in my "drafts." I forgot to post it the other day. :P

  I wrote:
> "God of the Gaps: God is only involved in things...of which we have no
> understanding. When you hear someone talking about God "intervening"
> to do something, you're hearing this...."

  On Mar 13, 2005, at 3:21 AM, Don Winterstein wrote:
    
> I'm repeating myself, but:

  Hi Don,

  There's nothing wrong with repeating yourself, but having thought about
  it some more, I still don't quite agree.

> The second sentence is often wrong. I talk about God's "intervening,"
> but in no sense do I believe that God is only involved in things of
> which we have no understanding. Rather, I believe that God is
> involved in one way or another with everything that happens.

  I believe you and am not doubting your orthodoxy. I do wish you'd use a
  different word. All the definitions of "intervene" I can find have the
  connotation of involvement in something in which one was previously
  uninvolved:

  Webster's on "intervene" from (http://tinyurl.com/72585<http://tinyurl.com/72585>):
  1 : to occur, fall, or come between points of time or events
  2 : to enter or appear as an irrelevant or extraneous feature or
  circumstance
  3 : to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification
  <intervene to stop a fight>
  4 : to occur or lie between two things
  5 a : to become a third party to a legal proceeding begun by others for
  the protection of an alleged interest b : to interfere usually by force
  or threat of force in another nation's internal affairs especially to
  compel or prevent an action

  dictionary.com:
  1. To come, appear, or lie between two things.
  2. To come or occur between two periods or points of time.
  3. To occur as an extraneous or unplanned circumstance.
  4. a. To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an
  action or development.
  b. To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the
  affairs of another nation.
  5. Law. To enter into a suit as a third party for one's own
  interests.

  Cambridge: "to intentionally become involved in a difficult situation
  in order to improve it or prevent it from getting worse."

> I talk about intervening because I believe (1) God is distinct
> from the world,

  OK.

> (2) the world's capabilities are limited,

  Are the limited or wholly dependent on God?

> and (3) from time to time the world would not do God's will unless he
> manipulated it in such a way as to violate some of its built-in rules
> (e.g., Jesus' resurrection). If and when God finds it necessary to
> violate the rules, he "intervenes." Whenever he otherwise influences
> behavior, he simply "acts." God has room to influence the
> world without violating built-in rules and does so.

  If Lazarus decomposes to dust, I can say "God is acting." If Lazarus
  hobbles out of his tomb on Jesus's command, should I say God is
  "intervening," or "acting miraculously?" I'd prefer the second. I don't
  think He is more or less involved in either process, but the word
  "intervene" certainly carries that connotation.

  It seems to me that He always simply "acts." Sometimes, his actions are
  surprising and unexplainable. I have been trying for a long time to
  figure out if we can tell the difference between God's routine actions
  and "built-in rules." I'd be happier with "acts" vs. "acts
  miraculously" rather than "acts" vs. "intervenes."

> All Christians with whom I've discussed the matter believe God is
> involved in their lives. They have some limited understanding of
> their own lives. Therefore, they do not believe that God is only
> involved in things of which they have no understanding.

  Most of the Christians that I hear talk about such things seem to keep
  this belief compartmentalized. It's part of their theology, but finds
  little practical application. Since it is not applied, I think they get
  into "gaps"-type thinking even though it's not part of their declared
  theology.

  For instance, in the origins debate, I often hear or read folks arguing
  over to what extent or how often God "intervened" in the process. The
  special creationists might say, pretty much the whole thing.
  Progressive creationists might say, every now and then. Theistic
  evolutionists might say, only at the start. Since we all say we believe
  that God is involved in all things, then the YECs talk of the others as
  having left God out of creation. If you read their literature or listen
  to their lectures, they rant about godless processes and
  uniformitarianism. In part, what they are rejecting is that God was not
  doing the creating.

  So when I wrote:

> "God of the Gaps: God is only involved in things...of which we have no
> understanding. When you hear someone talking about God "intervening"
> to do something, you're hearing this...."

  I did not mean to say that the person saying God "intervened" is
  consciously denying God's providence. What I think they are doing is
  taking it for granted. Either way, you end up with "gaps" thinking.

  Sorry if I offended you or anyone else. That was not my intent.

  Bill Dozier
  Minister of Silly Guitar Sounds
  ------
  "The problem is we have too many Indians and not enough chickens." --
  an unknown induhvidual
Received on Sun Mar 20 02:30:03 2005