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

 Hi George,

The connection between the cross and the tree of life is really beautiful, is it not?!!? :)

The "two roads" is a metaphor for what you believe happened to early humanity, but I'm sure it doesn't capture all the aspects of the truth that were important to the original author, just as his metaphor of "tree/fruit" surely doesn't capture all the aspects that are important to us as we try to see it in the light of science.?

You are right that the trees don't give the impression of a journey, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a journey.? I should state this as a question:? was it important to the author of Genesis to teach how long humanity took in "falling"?? My sense for the story is that it was not on his priority list.? I think he was focused on telling us that humanity is not what we could have been, and that we (not God) bear the responsibility for that shortcoming.? He also gives us the psychology of Eve's choice as she spoke with the snake, thus providing some theology for why mankind fell.? I wouldn't claim that his use of a single couple named "Man" and "Life" implies that the Fall occurred in one generation (although it might have) nor that it occurred in a single event (though it could have).? For its ability to represent what were probably his theological priorities, I think the tree/fruit symbol is perfect.? It is a picture of ingestion in that we bring something into us and it b
 ecomes a part of us.? It thus represents our attempt to gain life (since food is what sustains life), and thus shows us mankind reaching out and taking what he thought would give true life.? These are the same symbols in Communion, of course, and I think the author's impulse to use this kind of symbolim is the same impulse God touches in us through communion.? Maybe humanity's early trajectory of "falling" was completed in a single moment, or maybe it took thousands of years.? I would say that God didn't give us any data on that in the Scripture.? So I don't see this as a weakness in the conjecture about the symmetry between the two trees as analogous to the symmetry of the two roads.

I agree that the lack of a command regarding the tree of life is exactly the weakness in this conjecture.? If the trees had a symmetric role in the story, why didn't God give symmetric commands to eat or non-eat.? (I should really be saying "anti-symmetric" commands, "anti-symmetric" roles, etc.)? But I think we have to weigh that weakness against the possibility that the original audience would already have perceived intended symmetry in these symbols even without the presentation of more symmetric commands in the text, and that the author knew that they would, and hence he did not see a need to be more explicit in drawing out the commands.? What we do see is that both trees were important to the story, -- the tree of life plays a crucial role in the end, and its role is the result of what happened with the other tree.? So there is symmetry of cosmic importance.? Both trees have symbolic names, so there is symmetry in the presentation of them as symbols.? They both represent
  the impulse mentioned above, that the ingestion of something is a symbol of our attempt to gain "life" (Eve sought life through trying to be like God).? So this is an inherent symmetry that is very powerful -- both trees represent what our chosen source of "life" ultimately did or could have done to humanity.? There is a lot of symmetry in all this!? As for commands, the text says that we were given permission to eat of "all the trees of the garden" [which the audience would see includes the tree of life], with the sole exception being the one that would cause us to die. We aren't told whether mankind ever did eat of the Tree of Life or whether eating would be a one-time event within the rubric of this theological story.? But since the one tree caused a permanent change, I think the audience would perceive the intent of the story to be that the other one would also have made a permanent change.? In your "two roads" metaphor, the change is an accumulation of distance as we t
 r
 avel.? In the fruit metaphor, all that accumulation is compressed i

nto a single event of ingestion.? I think eating continuously from the tree of life (versus eating from it once) is irrelevant to the symbolism of the story.? The eating represents the outcome of man's trajectory, as I read it.? I think the original audience would understand that man had a cosmic "choice" to make, and that we ate one tree and then the other was taken away because it was an either/or choice and we ate from the wrong one, which is identical to your metaphor of taking the wrong road.

Maybe the symbolism is more nuanced than this little sketch bears out.? Maybe the symmetry is limited because we don't eat of Christ once, but continuously, and hence the Tree of Life was intended to be eaten continuously.? Maybe the author did have this kind of asymmetry in mind.? But regardless, it seems to me that the rubric of the story implies eating of one is the symbolic opposite of eating of the other and produces opposite results in the same sense that your two roads are symbolic opposites.

best regards,
Phil

Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
To: alexanian@uncw.edu; bernie.dehler@intel.com; philtill@aol.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 9:30 am
Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

Phil -

?

The point of the "wrong road" metaphor is that's
got the idea of motion or development, which is a critical concept missing from
the traditional "fall" metaphor.? Of course "a journey of 1000 km begins
with a single step" & eating of the tree of knowledge can be seen as
standing for the 1st step.? OTOH, there are no commands, + or -, given to
Adam & Eve concerning the tree of life, so speaking of "eating from the
wrong tree" is a bit misleading just in terms of the text.

?

In my 2006 article I mentioned Barr's argument (in
The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality) that Gen.3 isn't about
immortality lost but about?a lost?possibility

for it.? The tree of life reappears at the
very end of the Bible in Rev.22.2.? & as I suggested, the cross is not
really "another tree" but in fact is the tree of life - if God has
created the world with sin & redemption in view.? & in a way that's
consistent with what you suggest.? The original (& ongoing sin) is
refusal to trust & obey God, while Christ crucified is the supreme &
life-giving?instance of trust & obedience.

?

(The ancient proper preface for Lent in the
Communion service has the phrase "that he who by a tree once overcame, might
likewise by a tree be overcome."? There the comparison is between the cross
and the tree of knowledge, not of life.)

?

?

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

  
----- Original Message -----

  
From:
  philtill@aol.com
  

  
To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com ; alexanian@uncw.edu ; bernie.dehler@intel.com

  
Cc: asa@calvin.edu

  
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:07
  PM

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

  
George,

instead of saying "taking the wrong road,"
  could we not say "eating from the wrong tree"?? The text doesn't tell us
  a lot about the tree of life, but since the symbolism of the one tree was that
  it made man become permanently different, isn't it likely that the symbolism
  of the other tree was intended to be that it, too, would make man permanently
  different??? And thus its name "the Tree of Life" would imply that
  it could make mankind become those who have God's life in them, making them
  regenerate, but from an unfallen state rather than from a fallen one.? I
  keep thinking that if mankind had **first** gone into a relationship with
  Christ (i.e., having eaten from the tree of life), then God would have granted
  us **second** to know moral law (i.e., having eaten from the tree of the
  knowledge of good and evil)
  and thus become beings culpable to that law but without it becoming death to
  us.

I can't help thinking this is the meaning of the symbolism in the
  text, and so I think that the two roads you are describing are actually an
  explicit feature of the text, the intended symbology.? There really were
  two roads (two trees) and humanity took the wrong one first.

I find
  this appealing because it matches closely Paul's discussion of why the letter
  kills us and how the Spirit gives life.? The moral law kills us because
  we don't have the ability within ourselves to keep it and therefore it merely
  points out where we fail and in that sense kills us.? And Paul describes
  the life of the Spirit within us as making us become those who keep the law in
  the sense of becoming righteous.? So this corresponds perfectly with the
  two trees in the garden.? If we had eaten of Life then we would have had
  power within us to keep Law.? The basic idea is that no creature is
  intended to be a moral agent apart from spiritual Life from God in us to
  empower that moral agency.

I also like to think that the symbolism of
  the Tree of Life in the garden could be taken to be Christ present in the
  garden.? Paul presents the rock that Moses struck with his staff during
  the Exodus as being Christ.? If Paul can describe a rock as being Christ,
  wouldn't he also take the Tree of Life in the garden to be Christ?? I
  know that a high Christology is your guiding hermeneutic, and I think this
  interpretation of the second tree being the alternative "road", the untaken
  road, is consistent with a high Christology, because it is Christ who was
  present from mankind's beginning as the way to life.? But Christ was the
  tree that was rejected in the garden, just as He was rejected when He later
  came into the world, being nailed upon another tree so that we may each
  individually choose to eat from Him, the Tree of Life.

Do you see
  anything wrong with this reading of the text?

I also find it
  interesting that it seems (to me at least) compatible with what we know of
  human origins.

Phil

Original
  Message-----
From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
To:
  Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>; Dehler, Bernie
  <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sun, 16 Nov
  2008 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
  (spiritual evolution)

  
Moorad-?
?
I
  agree that 'we could have not have "fallen" if we were not in an "un-fallen"
  state,' but I think language of "fallenness" isn't the most appropriate.
  Rather, as I discussed in my 2006 article, I think that the image of "taking
  the wrong road" corresponds better both to the picture given in the early
  chapters of Genesis & to what happened to early humanity - though I don't
  think the former is a blow by blow description of the
  latter.?
?
Shalom?
George?
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm?
-----
  Original Message ----- From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>?
To:
  "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "Dehler,
  Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>?
Cc:
  <asa@calvin.edu>?
Sent:
  Friday, November 14, 2008 11:28 PM?
Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and
  going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)?
?
George it was
  nice meeting you and listening to your talk in New Bern, NC. I want to view
  this issue of sin as simply as possible without, I hope, distorting or
  minimizing the depth and importance of this
  problem.?
?
?
Jesus came to undue something we did.
  However, what did we do? Surely, we could have not have "fallen" if we were
  not in an "un-fallen" state for otherwise we would be "fallen" creatures and
  not deserving of eternal punishment. If God turned some sort of lower form of
  being into a human, since evolution could have not accomplished that, would
  not then that be Adam. The issue then becomes, were there many Adams turned or
  only one? Are we then only reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate our
  knowledge of evolution? However, this seems somewhat
  contrived.?
?
Moorad?
?
________________________________?
?
From:
  asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on
  behalf of George Murphy?
Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 5:04 PM?
To:
  Dehler, Bernie?
Cc: asa@calvin.edu?
Subject: Re: [asa] CS
  Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
  evolution)?
?
Bernie -?
?
1st, sin was not
  "always there." It only arose in the world when creatures came into being who
  were able to be aware to some extent of God's will for them & to be able
  to either obey or disobey it. (With my qualification "in the world" I am
  bypassing the question of an angelic fall.) There was no sin before there were
  "theological humans" - not because our consciences create sin (God decides
  what is sin) but because there was no one for whom the concept "sin" was
  meaningful.?
?
Then note that I said nothing about a "fall."
  When humans, in the above sense, came into being they could in principle have
  progressed toward the goal God intended. They didn't. That's what I meant by
  the process getting off track.?
?
Of course images of "roads"
  or the crude diagram I sketched have serious limitations. There is no need to
  think that there was precisely one path that would have led from Point A to
  the eschaton. Similarly, there are many wrong paths. & as I tried to
  indicate in my sketch, the work of Christ doesn't immediately put us back on
  one of the original correct paths but rather reorients our path so that we're
  headed back to where we're supposed to end up rather than away from
  it.?
?
There is a sense in which the "fall" is in each of us,
  and more than that, it's in each of us over & over. Genesis 3 is our
  story. But it's not just the story of everyman and everywoman, for its
  presented in scripture as a story set at the beginning of the human race. When
  Steve has the 2 parts of my response up on his blog, take a look at my
  responses to Denis L's
  position.?
?
Shalom?
George?
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm?
?
-----
  Original Message ----- From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>?
Cc:
  asa@calvin.edu?
Sent: Friday,
  November 14, 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 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."?
?
?
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 (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 <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>?
?
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:?
?
?
1. Big bang (nothing but energy- no
  matter)?
2. Elements form (matter forms)?
3. Stars
  form?
4. Planets form?
5. Biological life forms?
6.
  Humans form?
7. 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?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
To
  unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
  with?
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
  message.?

  Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you
  browse with the Games Toolbar - Download
  Now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 18 19:57:48 2008