Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

 Bernie wrote:

>> We did not fall into sin- sin was always there and our
conscience arose (via evolution) to recognize sin as sin.  The creation of
the conscience was an evolutionary thing, it detected the problem of sin, and
God made a way for a solution, which is another step in evolution. <<

 
Bernie, I don't think George would agree, and I know don't agree for the following reason.  While it is true that biological tendencies such as selfishness, territoriality to the hurt of our neighbors, sexual aggression, etc., preexisted Adam's fall (because they enhance the reproduction of an individual's genes), none of these things were sin before mankind "ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (using the symbolism of Genesis 3).  These actions were always quite innocent and nothing was sinful about them at all.  And furthermore, even now that have our eyes opened to see that we have these tendencies, even that doesn't make them sin.  They are still today just biology, even as they were in the past.  The sin itself is not the biology, but rather something very deep in the center of our heart where we culpably choose to turn from the God who loves us.  This culpability is very central to being like God (as God said about Adam after the Fall, "He has become like Us").  It is the culpability, the deep mystery that we can make a choice with spiritual meaning, that we can be like God, not merely the biology that surrounds the choices, that reall
y matters.  To be one who makes wrong choices is to be a sinner; not merely to be one who has an urge toward sexual aggression.
Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 2:42 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

David said:

“My specific concern is that it starts to sound like
panentheism or other such systems in which humanity is inevitably becoming more
"godlike."  There are plenty of new-agey worldview systems out
there in which humans, along with the rest of the universe and "god,"
are evolving together towards a common future.  These systems tend not to
have any notion of sin and redemption, which of course are essential to
Christianity.”

The idea is “Christian” (not panentheism) because
becoming born-again, a new creature, is all about Jesus and His work (the
Christian gospel).  In biological evolution, you have isolated groups,
then change.  In this case, an isolated group is one with the spiritual
nature- although it is not ‘inherited’ in the new gene pool but
passed along in the meme, rather than gene. 

George said:

“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 m
inistry, 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.”

Thanks for your contribution, George.  You are
implying that creation was good at some point, and then got corrupted (went
off-track).  But you and I both accept a non-historical Adam- no real
person named Adam.  We did not fall into sin- sin was always there and our
conscience arose (via evolution) to recognize sin as sin.  The creation of
the conscience was an evolutionary thing, it detected the problem of sin, and
God made a way for a solution, which is another step in evolution.  So
there’s no literal historical “fall event,” so I still see
the straight-line progression.  The “fall” is in each one of
us when we recognize our sinful nature.

…Bernie

From: George Murphy
[mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]

Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008
10:59 AM

To: Dehler, Bernie

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and
going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

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 (whi
ch
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

           
               
   
   \            /

           
               
       
\          /

                                =C
2    \      
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
     form20

 
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
a20fair 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-up20on 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

0A

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 17:18:53 2008