[asa] Re:

Ted,

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.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:08 PM

> <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity
> Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> Precedence: bulk
>
> Hi, Vernon,
>
> Thank you for pointing me to your "pilgrim's paradox."
>
> Lots of Christians agree with you, and I think your objections make
> quite a
> bit of sense. Wm Jennings Bryan's most basic reason for rejecting
> evolution
> was the same as yours. He wanted to think that "the law of
> love" (as he
> called it) trumped the "law of hate" (natural selection). Even Jack
> Haught,
> a very liberal Catholic theologian, sees the waste and suffering in
> natural
> selection as the greatest theological challenge presented by
> evolution. As
> I say, this is not a silly objection at all.
>
> Of the various ways in which one might respond, and I think there are
> various ways, the one I personally prefer is to emphasize (as George
> Murphy
> and John Polkinghore do) the theology of the "crucified God." If
> (as I
> believe) the primary revelation of God/God's character to us is the
> visible
> second person of the Trinity and his suffering/death/resurrection,
> then it
> is not so surprising to me that the creation might in some ways
> mirror this
> aspect of God's own character. That's not an easy way out of the
> theodicy
> problem--I don't believe there is any such thing as an easy way out
> of that
> one--but it's consistent with my own understanding (at least) of
> Christianity and the Biblical picture of the suffering servant. It's
> also
> consistent with the epigram to CS Lewis' book, "The Problem of Pain,"
> which
> quotes George MacDonald as follows:
>
> "The son of God suffered unto the death, not that men not suffer, but
> that
> their sufferings might be like His."
>
> This still fails to address the question, "Why did God not make heaven
> now?", but as with other questions of theodicy I doubt that fully
> convincing
> answers will be forthcoming this side of heaven--assuming that they
> even
> will then.
>
> 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 11:36:32 2006