Re: [asa] on TE and PT, a response to Gregory

This is why I always parted company with Arthur Peacocke and preferred JP's
approach and in the late 80s it was good to be with them both so I did not
only read them but heard and discussed with them. It was odd to be in a
small group and have only JP and myself rejecting a strongly liberal or PT
approach.

In my view JP is not novel but a continuation of earlier Christians like
Coulson, Mascall and Yarnold in the 50s and 60s, who in turn look back to
earlier ones. In the 50s Peacocke went to see Yarnold for advice on science
and religion, whereas JP was originally involved with the RSCF now CIS .
Perhaps I ought to write up what Iknow about Yarnold, though none of his
letters exist. He was also one of the first British civilians to have
pencilling used on him in early 1946.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>; "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Gregory Arago" <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:14 PM
Subject: [asa] on TE and PT, a response to Gregory

>>>> Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 1/29/2008 5:09 PM >>> asks the
> following questions:
>
> Though I appreciate the article and Ted's willingness to accomdate,
> satisfaction with the defence of TE is still lacking. Please, can you or
> anyone else explain to me how a person can accept the notion of
> 'non-process
> evolution'? This seems to me a blatant contradiction in terms! Evolution
> by
> definition simply must proceed. (Though dis-invoke A.N. Whitehead at your
> leisure.)
>
> <SNIP>
>
> It would be helpful not to confate TE (theistic evolution-ism) with PT
> (process theology), but for goodness sake, let's not pretend they're
> un-related! Everybody in the TE camp can in reality be safely considered
> as
> a 'process' person, can't they? If not, why not?
>
> *******
>
> Ted replies briefly, though a book would be required to give a fully
> satisfactory answer to these excellent questions.
>
> This morning I read the interview of John Polkinghorne in the Jan 29 issue
> of Christian Century. Here is the link:
> http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4274
>
> If you read this carefully, Gregory, especially his answers to the
> questions about miracles and "a self-limiting God," you should see how
> someone like Polkinghorne (there are others who agree with him) can be
> accurately seen as a TE and yet also not as a process theologian. His
> answer does not "pretend" that TE and PT are unrelated--of course they
> are,
> since evolution was influential on the formation of PT. And yes,
> Whitehead
> is invoked in this interview. At the same time, however, the acceptance
> of
> biological evolution need not mean the acceptance of PT. Polkinghorne
> rejects PT emphatically, despite his moderate tone, for two of the same
> reasons that I reject PT. I quote him as follows: "My criticism of PT is
> that its God is too weak. God has to be both the God alongside us, the
> 'fellow sufferer' in Whitehead's phrase [Ted: I insert an enormous
> qualifier
> here, on behalf of Polkinghorne: Whitehead's 'fellow sufferer' was not in
> Incarnate God, who literally suffered unto death for our sake; but
> Polkinghorne's God is quite literally the crucified Christ. This is
> indeed
> an enormous qualifier and must not be missed.], but also the one who is
> going to redeem suffering through some great fulfillment. To put it
> bluntly, the God of PT isn't the God who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from
> the dead."
>
> That pretty much sums it up, Gregory. Is this response adequate, in your
> opinion?
>
> Also, the issue of "self-limitation" is very significant. When PT was put
> together back in the 1920s in places like Chicago, the radical theologians
> there didn't like that term. It implied for them that God didn't have to
> be
> limited at all, and they didn't like that. They wanted a God who had no
> other choice, like Plato's Demiurge. But as Polkinghorne realizes, God
> does
> have a choice--God can and will make a world unlike this one (that is what
> he means by "some great fulfillment" in the passage above), but that is
> not
> the world in which we presently live. Why did God make this choice? I
> don't know--and the book of Job tells me that I am not likely to know.
> But
> I can have faith in the God who is literally a fellow sufferer in the
> dying
> Christ, and faith in the real power of the God who brought again from the
> dead, and literally, the same Christ who had been crucified. Hence you
> see
> why, for me also, PT isn't adequate.
>
> My best, Gregory,
>
> 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 Jan 30 11:50:27 2008