[asa] Re:

>>> "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> 08/29/06 9:25 PM >>>writes:

Thanks for your own theological reflections on theodicy. Jack Haught, whom
you defended so ably in another note, also addresses the question in both a
theological and evolutionary context in his book, _God After Darwin_:
:
   "Reflection on the Darwinian world can lead us to contemplate more
explicitly the mystery of God as it is made manifest in the story of life's
suffering, the epitome of which lies for Christians in the crucifixion of
Jesus. In the symbol of the cross, Christians discover a God who
participates fully in the world's struggle and pain*. Evolutionary biology
not only allows theology to enlarge its sense of God's creativity by
extending it over measureless eons of time; it also gives comparable
magnitude to our sense of the divine participation in life's long and often
tormented journey" (Haught, 2000, 46; also cited in Peters and Hewlett 144).

I quote it in my essay "Theologies of an Evolving Creation," where I also
refer to George Murphy's theology of the cross
(http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay07.asp.

BTW, it just struck me that in condemning the theological views of Ken
Miller and Jack Haught in his recent screed (i.e.,book), Wells may be
hitting back at them because they testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover
case. I believe Wells testified for the defense, did he not? Too good to be
a coincidence.

Ted replies:
I will have some comments on the larger issues, from an historical point of view, shortly, in a separate post.

Haught's reflections, quoted above, are in tune with the "crucified God" or "theology of the cross" approach that has been so helpful to me. Where I differ with Haught and many others, is on what I regard to be extremely important matters such as the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus. Xty to me makes no sense unless Jesus was literally God in the flesh, raised literally into a resurrected life as the "first fruits" of them that sleep. Indeed, I'll go further than this. IMO, the crucified God/theology of the cross concept has no real cash value for dealing with theodicy unless the crucified man was really God--that is, unless we actually did crucify God. A merely functional trinity, e.g., seems pointless to me.

Haught's commitment to what looks like process theism to me (Haught said in court that he isn't a process theologian, and my mouth is still open in response) prevents him from being able to make these kinds of claims, which I place at the heart of Christian belief.

None of this changes what I said in his defense yesterday. To understand my view of his thought, both themes need to be understood.

As for putting Haught and Ken Miller in the same boat, that's probably not accurate. But IDs are not usually very discerning when it comes to theological differences among TEs. This isn't news to anyone.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 30 10:11:33 2006