I am disposed to agree with all three, though I do not sense the
urgency to add "now!" to the "musts".
But then, I am a Friend (and enjoyer, and beneficiary) of ASA.
I think the answers to these challenges for a particular person revolve
about what is perceived to be at stake in their view.
As one who grew up in comfort with evolution as an established
biological "mechanism", I have not found it to be all that disruptive
to my faith walk.
I have, admittedly, shifted over time to some perspectives that lie
outside mainstream orthodoxy. But I cannot trace those moves to the
influence of evolution.
Re 1 - What's really at stake in Adam and Eve? The account of Adam and
Eve provides an explanation for the origins of disobedience. But, at
the end of the day, they are not really responsible for any personal
distancing from the relationship and intent of God. So if we did not
have that account at all, would then our sense of distance and need for
reconciliation cease to exist? I think not. That sense and felt need
exists for virtually all people groups, though their particular stories
(and names for God) vary quite a bit.
Re 2 - What is really at stake in the Fall? The story provides a way of
accounting for how human-action-referenced bad things came to be a part
of our world. But again, in the presence of volitional action, bad and
even destructive choices are within the range of choices accompanying
free will. The Fall provides a simple-to-understand background story,
but seems to me to give rise to all sorts of troubling contradictions.
For example, on the one hand, Genesis records that Creation is "good",
and yet somehow the action of a single miniscule individual (or two)
has the capacity to derail the central plan of the God of all of
Creation. That makes no sense when a very simple alternative
explanation of the troublesome actions of man being an artifact of the
divine and intentional gift of true free will suffice. The idea that
some hold that man is somehow capable of corrupting all of God-caused
Creation verges on monstrous egotism (in my view). We clearly have that
"morally ambiguous character", regardless of what mode of man's
creation is invoked, so this question woul not appear to be
specifically evolution-linked.
Re 3 - What is a stake here? Ego, I think. Objections to this one
strike me as of necessity being essentially anthropocentric. In a
terrestrial view, every people group has a creation story in which they
are the central figures. What would keep that from being the case for
any sentient being, terrestrial or not? In that larger view, all of
Creation is in some measure a reflection of the Creator, bearing the
"fingerprints" of the creative divinity. As humans, we have some
distinctive attributes that let us conceptualize and speculate about
things in ways that presumeably other living creatures don't, at least
to this degree and in this form. But to suggest that the
imago dei
"must be" constrained to human kind alone seems to be to be
presumptious at a minimum, and in reality out of touch with the true
nature and transcendancy of God whose way of existence and intentions
lie so far beyond our ken. Again, I don't this "must" is forced to be
solely associated with evolution.
Focusing for a moment on the central figure of Jesus, which of these
really negates any of the personal relationship, wisdom, or redemptive
aspects of Jesus? None, I think.
Living in the tension is fine. It can teach, and it allows time for
rumination. But some commonly accommodated tensions seem unnecessary,
especially when at the heart they require that the universe revolve
about us.
Or so it seemeth to me.... JimA [Friend of ASA]
Steve Martin wrote:
Karl Giberson's "Saving Darwin" is being released tomorrow.
Today he published an article on my blog called "
Evolution
in Public Schools: A Threat or a Challenge?" where he summarizes
his 2002 PCSF article "The teaching of Evolution in Public School".
Giberson's primary point is that the evidence does not support the
claim (by Philip Johnson et al) that atheistic and anti-Christian ideas
are being promoted through the teaching of evolution in public
schools.
However, it is Giberson's provocative conclusion that really got
me thinking. He states that the war in the public schools will not be
concluded until the Evangelical Church confronts the theological
challenges posed by evolution. He proposes three changes that must
occur:
1. We must abandon thinking of Adam and Eve as real people or even
surrogates for groups of real people
2. The Fall must disappear from history as an event and become,
instead, a partial insight into the morally ambiguous character with
which evolution endowed our species
3. We must consider extending the imago dei, in some sense, beyond our
species
Of course, the majority of Evangelicals would strenuously claim
that we must NOT do any of the above, and to do so would mean the
abandonment of orthodox Christianity. Others (including myself) would
claim that neither a clear-cut "must" nor "must not" is mandatory at
this time. Ie. We would rather live with the tension between the
theological and scientific claims while further work proceeds.
Quick Poll: Must, Must Not, or Neither?
I'd be interested in hearing the response of other list members to
these three "musts" that Karl has proposed. Personally, I'm not going
to commit either way on any of them just yet although I'm leaning
towards "must" for #1, "must not" for #3, and leaning neither way for
#2.
You can also interact directly with Karl by leaving a comment on
his article at the link provided above.
--
Steve Martin (CSCA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 9 11:58:47 2008