Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Several deep topics have been woven into this discussion about human
origins and theology:
   --what is meant by "imago dei";
   --the definition of "sin" (behavioral, dispositional, relational,
theological);
   --human nature and the soul (dualism vs. monism);
   --to what extent the Fall was an historical event;
   --Adam and Eve as real ancestors of all humans, real representatives of
all humans, or symbolic.

There are two linked and important concepts which I feel are often
under-utilized in these discussions.
   --God establishing personal relationships with (early) humans;
   --God personally revealing himself and his will to humans.

    It seems to me that an emphasis on these concepts allows one to hold a
monist view of human nature and the soul, and an evolutionary
understanding of the development of human capacities and behavioral
dispositions, while at the same time making fairly minimal alterations to
a great deal of traditional theological concepts about imago dei, the
soul, sin, and the Fall.

    If we define "imago dei" in terms of human capacities (intelligence,
rationality, establishing relationships, living in community,
self-consciousness, etc.), then God could have given us those capacities
through evolutionary processes. And some animals share those capacities
to some extent. But if we include within "imago dei" the idea of God
commissioning human beings with special authority and special
responsibility, then that commissioning applies uniquely to humanity.
That authority from God and that responsibility to God is supernatural and
spiritual even if we take a monist view of human nature.

    Similarly with the soul. If we define the "soul" in terms of human
capacities, if we believe those capacities could be embodied in the
complex organization of our brains, and God could have given us those
capacities through evolutionary processes. I think this applies even to
human moral capacities (i.e. the ability to chose between acting in ways
which harm others and ways which help others, and the ability to
understand the difference) and some of our religious capacities (i.e. the
ability to think about God as a person, to understand what worship and
prayer are, etc.).
    However, when we talk about "the soul" theologically, we also mean
things besides human capacities. We are also talking about things such as
our relationship to God, our accountability to God, and our hope for life
after death. My relationship with another person is not fully embodied
within myself, within my brain. That relationship is also partially
embodied in the other person. So also my relationship with God, and my
responsibility to God, is not fully embodied within myself. It is also
"embodied" in God, and those aspects are certainly supernatural.
Similarly, my hope for life after death rests with God's power and God's
promises. So even if we take monist and evolutionary views of human
capacities, part of what we mean theologically by "the soul" is still
supernatural.

    A full picture of "sin" involves talking about our actions, our
dispositions, our interpersonal relationships, and our relationship with
God. So I think we can have a monist view of human nature and an
evolutionary development of our behavioral dispositions, and still
theologically talk about sin as being first and foremost about our
relationship with God. God has revealed to us that "natural" elements of
sin, such as how we treat each other and the private thoughts we dwell on,
have spiritual and supernatural consequences because they affect our
relationship with God.

    I find these concepts especially helpful when thinking about the
historicity of the Fall. I believe that God has some sort of relationship
with all living things, but God's relationship with animals is not
"personal" as it is with humans. Even if we take monist and evolutionary
views of the development of human capacities and dispositions, at some
point in early human history God began to personally relate to humans and
began to personally reveal God's will for human behavior. I won't
speculate about when or where or in what form those first revelations took
place, since God reveals himself to humans in a variety ways, and the ways
God reveals himself to a 5-year-old can be different than the ways God
reveals himself to an adult. But at some point in early human history,
God began to reveal himself personally and establish "personal"
relationships. Whether or not the very first such event historically was
somehow different in significance than the next such thousand events is an
interesting theological question. But in either case, early humans
rebelled against God's revealed will. And after this, there is no
question that we're talking about "sin."

Loren

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 10 16:58:02 2008