I just posted this link at CiS and it seems to fit with Bernie's question here. Let me agree that the diagram that George drew, in light of Teilhard de Chardin's views, is indeed 'crooked' (not at all to suggest that George himself is such!). There are discontinuities or differences in kind ("two different senses of evolution" as Murray writes), that need to be taken into account.
Igor Sikorsky, inventor of the helicopter, Russian-Ukranian Orthodox Christian on "The Evolution of the Soul"
http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/theevol1.html
Let me just add that, to me, the notion of 'spiritual evolution' is ridiculous! 'Development' is a much more kosher term. Don't let the biologists have their cake so easily o' 21st centurians! - G.A.
--- On Fri, 11/14/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)
To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Friday, November 14, 2008, 9:59 PM
Bernie -
If I may butt in - & not really deal with Lewis's views - it looks to me as if you're arguing for the same sort of thing Teilhard & other process theologians have in mind. I.e., the work of Christ (which would have to be stage 6.5 in your scheme) is seen as part of the general evolutionary process. & in one sense it is - in Christ God becomes a participant in that process. But what's missing here is that after humans form, (at stage 6.1 or something like that) the evolutionary process got off track, and the work of Christ in his ministry, death and resurrection and the subsequent work of Christ and the Spirit through the church (.e., you stage 7)are directed to getting the process back toward the ultimate goal God intends.
Diagramatically (if this shows up right) it's not just
1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8
(8 being the final Kingdom of God) but
1__2__3__4__5__6_6.1 8
\ /
\ /
\ 7
\ /
6.5
On the gospel being "ther nex step" in evolution, I would prefer to speak of the church, the Body of Christ, as the next stage in evolution, as Teilhard did. But that needs to be placed in the "crooked" diagram I sketched rather than a straight one.
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)
Hi David- let me state it this way, and tell me what you think (lots of steps are skipped, like in biblical geneologies :-) :
Evolutionary sequence:
Big bang (nothing but energy- no matter)
Elements form (matter forms)
Stars form
Planets form
Biological life forms
Humans form
The “spiritual man” forms
That is taking Lewis’ ch. 11 literally. Where’s the error? Yes, God does something new in step 7 (directly intervening and creating a personal relationship with humans/God), but there’s always something radically new anyway in each major stage- so why is that a problem? This seems like an interesting impact on evangelism- a message for scientific people to accept the next stage... become a “new creature” and enter into a relationship with God. I feel like I’m spear-heading something here… taking Lewis farther than he intended- has anyone else wrote or espoused this possibility of the gospel being in-line with evolution as “the next step?”
…Bernie
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:01 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
I don't think Lewis is making those distinctions; he's trying to make an analogy with biological evolution.
If all you mean is that conversion is an "evolutionary" process in the sense that it is gradual and happens over time, I think that is a fair statement, at least if we are understanding "coversion" to mean the entire ordro salutis.
But the analogy still breaks down because Christian conversion is obviously teleological, while natural evolution is not (at least from a human perspective). Moreover, Christian conversion doesn't happen in accordance with natural laws -- it specifically requires divine intervention.
So, it seems to me a limited analogy. The classical notion of a "pilgrimage" or the Pauline idea of running a race seem more apt.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
Hi David-
Evolution is different in different realms. For example, there is the sex act in some biological evolution, but not all. For chemical evolution, there is no sex. Same with planetary evolution. DNA mutation plays a part in biological evolution, but no part in planetary or star evolution. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with the next step of evolution, getting born again, being by choice. Evolution also creates new things, for example, the ability to hear, see, talk, think, etc. The new thing in this case is the introduction of the spiritual man, and the way it is received.
I'm still looking at to why this chapter can't be taken literally. Any other ideas? Does this seem foolish, or am I picking-up on something new?
…Bernie
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:14 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
That conversion is analogous to biological evolution. Biological evolution happens "naturally." Conversion doesn't.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
I guess a clarifying question of mine would be "What does Lewis say in Ch. 11 that is figurative and can't be literal?"
…Bernie
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:01 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
It's an interesting analogy. But read it carefully -- nowhere is Lewis suggesting that we simply evolve into new creations. His focus is on transformation, of the sort that only comes through submission to Christ. He uses the metaphor of evolution to suggest that this process, as it occurs in Christians here on earth, isn't always obvious and often is gradual. But without that crucial aspect of transformation by Christ and in Christ, you're really starting to talk about a different gospel, I think.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
One thing I wanted to share and see what feedback I get.
I kind of feel like I might be going-off the deep-end. The reason why is because of how I understand C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" (online here: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt )
In his last chapter, 11, "The New Men," he offers evolution as a metaphor for gospel transformation. Here's why I think I might be going-off the deep-end: I'm starting to see what he wrote as literal instead of figurative. It seems so profound and touching, I'm wondering if what he says about evolution isn't really just an analogy, but literally true.
By evolution, I mean "total evolution" not just biological evolution. Total evolution explains how everything evolves- from the big-bang, to elements, to stars, planets, etc. Maybe the work of Christ is the latest injection according to total evolution? He talks about "the next step" in evolution- the ability to be born-again.
Anyway, I feel strange taking something that was offered as an analogy to be thinking of it quite literally.
I'll likely be giving a presentation of this chapter 11 at one of the meetings I hold, so I would appreciate feedback on this chapter.
…Bernie
__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 14 15:01:50 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 14 2008 - 15:01:50 EST