[asa] on TE and deism

I changed the title of this thread for greater accuracy.

>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 1/23/2008 10:55 AM >>> writes,
very accurately:

It's incorrect, then, to equate every Christian version of "theistic
evolution" or "evolutionary creationism" with Deism. It's entirely
compatible with the Christian understanding of God's immanence to suggest
that God doesn't ordinarily "intervene" in natural processes, so long as
we
understand that those natural processes remain contingent on God's
sustaining power and will.

Ted comments:
This particular view -- that TE amounts to deism -- can be advanced
erroneously by people from either theological side of the view expressed
above. Quite a few ID's have said this, partly I think based on Howard Van
Till's picture of God and creation, which does seem to border on deism IMO.
They see his view as representative of TE generally, or at least of
evangelical varieties of TE, when in fact evangelical TEs are probably more
likely to embrace a Christocentric form of TE such as that advanced by
Polkinghorne or George Murphy. (Not that Howard's picture of God and nature
is too far off base -- he had some things right, IMO; it's more a question
of tone and emphasis, which count for a lot in theological discourse.) ID's
who view TE as deism, in my experience, tend to be those who don't read much
theology. They focus pretty narrowly on origins issues, not even on a
larger theology of creation. If you keep the incarnation out of the
picture, if you keep redemption out of the picture, then it isn't too hard
to see TE as deism: where is the role for God? But if you start with
incarnation and redemption, as John's gospel does, and only in that context
introduce creation and origins, then it's a lot harder to end up seeing TE
as deism. A lot harder. There's nothing at all deistic about the
incarnation and salvation -- those are the things that genuine deists
detested.

On the other side, I've been in places where the evangelical type of TE
view, in which (typically) God actually originates the universe (ie, it
wasn't there "before" God acted to bring it into being) and (always) raised
Christ bodily from the grave, is called deism by people on the theological
left. This is b/c, in their view, a God who "intervenes," who is capable of
acting out of omnipotence, is seen as deistic. Omnipotence raises hard
questions for those who want either to elevate divine immanence over and
above divine transcendence, or else (as quite a few have done) to deny
transcendence entirely, as a bad idea that lacks postmodern attitudes and is
scientifically outmoded. Well, I have some bad news for this group, too.
Transcendence is not scientifically outmoded -- indeed, one could argue that
20th century cosmology, since the 1920s but esp since the 1960s, makes a lot
more sense if God really is transcendent (as well as immanent); don't build
a science-friendly theology (which is what many modern theologians have
tried to do) simply on the basis of evolutionary biology. Furthermore, a
God who isn't transcendent can't ground the Christian hope (see my other
post today), so if you want to take this route please don't pretend to be
thinking Christianly. More to the point of this thread, a God who raised
Christ is not a deists' God -- no way, no how. Those in this group who call
TE deism don't seem to remember what deism was really about: a deep
suspicion of Biblical miracles and a denial of God's active interest in the
ongoing history of the world. It was also about a God who had to create the
best of all possible worlds, so that acting in history to alter the world
would have been a denial of God's having done that from the start. Those in
this group need perhaps to peer into a good mirror: do you deny all miracle
stories? do you deny the incarnation (the ultimate expression of divine
immanence and ongoing interest in the world)? do you deny the new heaven and
earth (the ultimate contradiction to God having had to make the best
possible world the first time)? If you want to start calling evangelical
TE's deists, perhaps you'd better first take care of the deism in your own
camp....

Sorry for the rant. But not for the thoughts.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 23 12:24:07 2008