Re: [asa] Re:

Ted et al -

We shouldn't assume that the use of process theology necessarily rules out
traditional Christian beliefs such as creatio ex nihilo, the Trinity or a
realistic understanding of resurrection. Admittedly some process
theologians have little use for some or all of those concepts. But others
have tried to express them in process categories. Joseph Bracken, S.J., is
a prominent example. (He's tried to develop a process version of the
Trinity, discussed in Ted Peters' _God as Trinity_, and has an article on
creatio ex nihiloin the Fall 2005 _dialog_. I think he may have an article
in the most recent _Theology and Science_ but my copy's at church now.) Of
course such attempts may be criticized but I think it would be best to do
that criticism in a way that would encourage process theologians to develop
better formulations rather than insist that the whole project be dropped.
Classical substantialist metaphysics has created its own problems for
Christian theology.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: [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.
>

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 11:20:03 2006