The Evolution of Creation

From this chapter in Moltmann, the following quote:

Why, in fact, does pantheism seem so plausible a philosophy to many evolutionary theorists, whether it be pantheism of matter, nature or life? The reason is not merely a striving for emancipation in rebellion against the church. †he reasons are factual, substantial ones. When eyes were turned towards the initial contingency of the world, theism always presented itself as the obvious philosophy, for theism distinguishes between God and the world. But when we are thinking about the evolution of the cosmos and of life from the contingency of events, dynamic pantheism seems much more plausible: the matter that organizes itself also transcends itself and produces its own evolution. So in this sense it is self-creative. This phenomenon can certainly be interpreted with the help of Spinoza's holistic theory. Natura est natura naturans. Consequently, deus sive natura. But the trinitarian doctrine of creation suggests a pneumatological interpretation. The God who is present in the world and in very part of it, is the creative Spirit. It is not merely the spirit of God that is present in the evolving world; it is rather God the Spirit, with his uncreated and creative energies

. (p.212).

Moltmann is here attempting to edge God into the creation that he, in my view, correctly, shows to reject him in its evolution.

No Date? Didn't Happen!

Watching a recent Martin Clunes show on TV, called, I think, the Islands of Britain, he met the self-styled head of the island of Forvik, an also self-styled 'Crown Dependency.

The fellow claims to have researched the legal status of the Shetland Islands and cannot find any dated link to the English or Scotish governments. He said on camera "If there's no date, then it didn't happen".

Which underlines the significance of dates in the Genesis account (whatever you, dear reader, think of them). Conversely to Forvik: if there is a date, it did happen!

Genesis makes the point that its events happened in history, and so they can be dated; and are.

Moltmann on Creation: more

A discernment of the eschatological redemption of the whole creation through Christ was the premise which led to the deduction that the protological creation had its foundations in Christ. This conclusion underlies the NT statements about Christ as ‘the mediator in creation’. We find the beginnings of this idea in Paul .He bases the liberty of believers in all sectors of life on the fact that everything is subjected to the sovereignty of Christ, but bases the universality of Christ’s sovereignty on the fact that everything has been created through him: ‘For us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist; (1Cor 8:6). In the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians too, awareness of the universality of salvation in and through Christ leads to the insight that ‘in him all things were created’ (Eph. 1:9ff.; Col. 1:15ff.). ‘The first-born from the dead’ (Col 1:18) is also ‘the first-born of all creation’ (1:15)

.

Hebrews 1:2 then presents the Christian vista of the universal lordship of Jesus, the Son of the eternal Father, and his mediatory function in creation, together with his preservation of the world and purification of our sins through him. ‘The Son’ is called ‘the brightness of his glory’ and ‘the express image of his (God’s) person (Heb 1:3 AV). These are symbols which Israel’s wisdom literature used to describe the eternal Wisdom of God through whom God created the world, still sustains it, and will one day glorify it (Prov. 8:22-31). The NT idea of Christ as mediator in creation is based on a sophia christology, according to which Jesus is both God’s Son and his eternal Wisdom. The Logos christology of the Gospel of John goes back to this when it declares: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…All things were made through him, and without him was not anything bade that was made’ (John 1:1, 3)

(pp 94, 95 God in Creation)

The experience of the eschatological reality of the Spirit leads to the conclusion that this is the same Spirit in whose power the Father, through the Son, has created the world, and preserves it against annihilating Nothingness: ‘When thou takest away their breath, the die and return to their dust. When thou sendest forth thy breath, the are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground’ (Ps. 104:29-30).

(p. 96)

The earlier theological idea of the Creator Spirit who interpenetrates, quickens and animates the world was pushed out by the modern mechanistic world picture. (p. 98)

and I especially like this:

…pantheism has turned people into indifferentists

quoting Heine (p.103) which is, I think an explanation of the moral and ontological result of evolutionism!

First 55 minutes

Frances Schaeffer, in an interview toward the end of his life with Christopher Catherwood, stated the crucial evangelistic importance of a sound space/time doctrine of creation. The author heard him remark in a discussion group at L'Abri in December of 1968 that if he had an hour with a person on a plane who did not know the lord, he would spend the first fifty-five minutes talking about creation in the image of God and were that man came from, and the last five minutes on the presentation of the gospel of salvation Schaeffer felt we are greatly mistaken to avoid the important subject of how we go her , why we are like we are, who is in charge, by whose rules we should play;, and by whose rules we will be judged. Schaeffer thought that when one avoid those questions, which are deeply implanted in every human heart, and jumps immediately to salvation, one loses the major impact on those who are seeking the truth. (p17 Creation and Change by Douglas Kelly)

Know your past

This letter appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today:

Tim Dean (Letters, August 3) says we should stop concerning ourselves about the distant evolutionary past and decide what is best for us today. Humans, like all living things, have been evolving to suit their environment for billions of years. Ten or 12,000 years ago we started to change the way we lived and the environment we lived in. If we don't understand our ''distant past'', we have little hope of dealing with our present circumstances.

How true, but which 'distant past'? For the Christian, I would think that the Bible gives us the only useful information about our 'distant past' and the point is well made; without this information, we have little hope of dealing with our present circumstances.

Either our distant past shows us we are in the family of God, or it makes us part of the family of dust!

Moltmann on Creation

As long as nature and human history represent promises of future glory itself, all knowledge of God and the world is parabolic, figurative knowledge…Images make present what is absent. when what was absent is present, the image is no longer necessary; it is even detrimental…The parable and the thing compared will no longer be distinguished from one another, because God will be directly and universally manifest through himself, and creation with all created things will participate directly and without any mediation in his eternal life.

(p. 64 God in Creation)

…the verb bara’ is used exclusively as a term for the divine brining forth, for which there is no corresponding human analogy. The world means a bringing forth in the sphere of history, nature and spirit, through which something comes into existence which was not there previously…This shows the divine creativity has no conditions or premises…It is neither actually nor potentially inherent or present in anything else.

(p 73)

All the works which the Creator makes in his creation follow one another consecutively; the phrases ‘and God said…’, ‘and God separated…’ make this evident

(p. 74)

Creation is not a demonstration of his boundless power; it is the communication of his love, which knows neither premises or preconditions: creation ex amore Dei… In his love God can choose; but he chooses only that which corresponds to his essential goodness, in order to communicate that goodness as his creation and in his creation….His love…leads him to go out of himself and to create something which is different from himself gut which none the less corresponds to him…the Sabbath – makes it unequivocally plain that creation was called into being out of the inner love which the eternal God himself is…The event of creation is depicted as creation through the Word…God ‘makes’ his creation through the Word which he utters. The word of creation is the continuum joining the Creator and his creation.

(p.76)


Anyone who believe in the God who created being out of nothing, also believes in the God who gives life to the dead. This means that he hopes for the new creation of heaven and earth. (p. 93)

North Shore Times Headbutting Continues

God in Creation

I'm reading Moltmann's God in Creation and despite JM's theistic-evolution type stance (I don't think that he's a typical TE person in the normal neo-evangelical usage), and his reference to the concerns of the 1980s (concerns which now seem dated and a little politically naive), he makes remarks which I think worth posting.

If we think in terms of environment and biotypes, the construction of the first creation account is astonishingly clear and logical. Modern reproaches that it is the mere outcome of mythical speculation, or that it displays a naive knowledge of nature, are quite wide of the mark.

Of course, I don't accept that there is more than one creation account. He refers above, of course to Genesis 1, and implies that G2 is a second account, which, of course, it is not.

One think that I've noticed is that Multmann flicks between quite a biblical world-concept and the opposite, that is, a materialist or pagan world-concept. His use of the word 'nature' above could betray this. Most usages of 'nature' imply disconnection from God, and self-existance at some level; I prefer the usage 'the creation' when considering the world around us as this identifies dependence upon and authorship by God, underlining the basic-ness of personality, or love in thinking about things.

Eternity: sycophancy rules?

Because Eternity published Greg Clarke's article, that I wrote directly to Greg about, I thought I'd write to the editor as well; almost needless to say, the letter was not published (does this mean Eternity's editorial policy is "agree or be silent?")

Greg Clarke’s comments about those who accept the direct reading of the Bible’s account of creation, in his article in Eternity, seems to stand at odds, not only with long Christian tradition (and theological consideration), but with the Bible itself!

The Genesis account, is endorsed, without qualification, throughout the Old and New Testaments, it is the spring point for the setting of covenant between God and humanity, and beds the relationship in the real world, not in an airy world of allusion or literary suggestion. Indeed, we are told in the OT that God spoke to Moses plainly (Ex 33:11), so presumably, Moses passed this plain talk on to us in the Bible!

The critical text in this connection, however, is Hebrews 11:1-3 which shows that God’s creating is the starting point of faith, faith hung on his action in history, and a creation that came from his word, not made of things seen: the very opposite of what materialism (evolution) contends!

So, Greg, do I take your word, or the word of the Holy Spirit?

Creation by Crowe

I've just read "Creation without Compromise" by Donald Crowe. Not a bad read, IMO. The book is fairly wide ranging, but has the central theme of one's view of origins being about, at root, the 'world-view' one adopts.

The book argues this well, without referring to what I think is a landmark book in this area, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, by Clouser. (Clouser is an evolutionist, as it happens). This results in one being able to say, I think, cogently, that the debate about origins (creation vs. evolution) is not a debate about 'science' vs. 'religion', where the science side thinks it gets the upper hand (but which just goes to prove what a philosopher I heard once say, only proves that scientists make poor philosophers), but is purely a religious debate.

Thus, putting paid to the tivial comment one often hears that 'the Bible is not a science textbook'. As though this was ever a question!

The author makes much of the importance of chronology as being the structure for history, and that the Bible gives us substantial chronological information, and does so quite self-consciously: that is, one doesn't have to go hunting for it.

Chronology does a couple of things in this connection, that rarely seems to be picked up in discussion.

1. It acts much the same way as the provenance of a document does for an historian. It gives us certitude about the connection of the document with that which it purports to report. Thus, in the Bible, the chronology gives us structuring information that goes to the historical credibility of its reports. If you can't give the chronological coordinates of your history, then the certitude of it being history reduces.

2. Similarly to (1) above, it shows us our connection to God. It is not some vague or mystical connection, conjoured out of hope or wishful thinking, but a connection that is tangible in terms of what makes things tangible in our life and times.

Adding 1 and 2, the creation, and indeed Biblical history, occured in this world, with the delimiters that position and relate every other event in this world: time and place (space). It is prosaically explicable, and not a mystery accessible only to those 'in the know'; but is, at least in principle, public knowledge.

If you can't give the coordinates of your story (of creation) then, it remains a story, and the real world must be explained in some other way.

PM 'outs' as atheist!

Following our Prime Minster, Julia Gillard's stating that she is no a believer in God, the series of letters below appeared in one of Sydney's suburban newspapers.

Interesting how the idea of God (or not-God, in this case) very quickly becomes a discussion about origins...its like the two ideas go together!

Genesis days

Another quote from Young's article on the Genesian days.





The whole article is in two parts on Ted Hildebrandt's website: part 1 and part 2.

Genesis & its literary form

From Young, EJ, Studies in Genesis One "The Interpretation of Genesis
1:2" First published in the Westminster Theological Journal.

Much has been written, even in evangelical circles, about the alleged
parallel between the Enuma Elish myth and Genesis 1. Young deals with an
aspect of this here. It is also worth noting that Eliade (see previous
posts) shows that EE is a ceremonial text with more cult usage than
setting out an account of what happened. Genesis is couched in language,
and a theological logic that indicates that the author took the events
of Genesis 1 to have actually happened in our 'time-space'.

65 million years

This quote from the ABC1 'Gruen Transfer' panel show:

...at the end of the day I personally don't have a problem with objectification of guys by women in ads or women by men in ads because at the end of the day the only reason we're here after 65 million years is someone's been 'shagin.'

The Gruen Transfer is a show about advertising, the quote is from one of the panelists Dan Gregory from SMART.

Interesting practical application of the idea of evolution: let's just use people for titilation, because all we are is reproducing units.

Eliade 7

Why does the universe look so old?

Well, does it, now?

Check this blog reporting on conference remarks by Al Mohler.
It is also on line. (It’s under the SAT (for Saturday) tab and over 60 mins long.)

Eliade 6

Eliade 5

Eternity...idiots?

In a recent edition of a local Christian newspaper "Eternity" an article appeared authored by Greg Clarke, a worker at the Centre for Public Christianity. He made the somewhat undergraduate claim that Christians who take the opening chapter of the Bible at face value are, somehow 'idiots'.

I wrote to Clarke as follows:

I was in many ways pleased to see your recent article in Eternity. I was particularly encouraged having heard you speak at the Centre for Public Christianity supporters’ lunch a couple of months ago at the Wesley Centre in Sydney.

However, as I read the article, I became concerned at the pejorative language attached to an historic Christian position held with respect to our understanding of the opening chapters of the Bible.

I must say, I was surprised, no, disappointed, in the use of the term ‘idiot’ to apply to some of the greatest names in church history, many respected Christian people and, to an extent, to myself as well. It reminds me of a similar lapse many years ago when Archbishop Jensen, who was then principal of Moore College and had been a regular preacher at my church, lampooned the historic Christian doctrine of creation as being a ‘hill billy’ view!

It seemed that his, and perhaps your, preferred take on the scriptures was to set them aside in deference to the world view which starts with the axiom that there is no God, and if there might be, he certainly hasn’t spoken meaningfully to us in terms congruent with the world we are in (yet how contrary this is to the import of Genesis 1). This aligns with the deist roots of modern views of cosmogony and Earth history that makes of God a mere cipher with no real connection with either the material cosmos or ourselves.

The irony in your declaration that people who accept the Bible’s account of creation at face value are ‘head in the sand idiots’ is its similarity to the more vehement declarations Richard Dawkins makes about Christians in general! His point is that any insertion of the supernatural into the evolutionary scheme is a sign of insanity. It was amusing to hear him on ABC TV’s Q&A program stating his view that he doesn’t mind if church worthies accept evolution alongside the Bible, because he saw such acceptance as the death knell of religious views. Why should he worry, he’s won!

Irony aside, the repugnance of your claim is the implications it has for the believer’s humility before the revelation of God, the preconceptions that constrain your particular hermeneutic, and the general failure to engage with conservative scholarship, let alone scientific criticism of the very old pagan view that the world, the ‘real’ world, really made itself over vast amounts of time, and we merely ‘clip on’ God, as a fiction, as most materialists see it: not as the credible creator who started it all.

I know that your colleague John Dixon is of the view that Genesis 1 has a literary structure that precludes it being an account of actual events, yet his case is not made, in my view, and he appears to simply trot out ideas that E J Young, as an example, had discussed and rebutted in the early 1960s. So, nothing new under the sun! Dixon does venture further into some more complex literary considerations, with his reference to the chiastic structure of Genesis 1, but he fails to indicate how this necessarily precludes the text being an account of events, given the ubiquity of the structure in the Bible and in ancient literature.

But it is at the point of ‘realism’ that I think your claim hits a snag. The view you appear to extol seems to me to have more in common with the anti-realist views of broadly conceived paganism and its contemporary dress-up, philosophical idealism. This set of views is perfectly happy with the Bible being regarded as conveying information by not conveying information, in some incoherent twist of logic, while pretending to adopt the realist stance of the Bible: that things can be as stated, and the world came from God’s hand as a unitary creation. That is, we think, understand and live in the world as a consistent whole, including the illumination of that world from the word of God, when it in fact rejects any realist stance and makes the Bible discontinuous with the world that it claims God made for encounter between him and us!

At bottom, you seem to be more impressed by contemporary materialism, its acolytes and deep cultural assent, and align yourself with a non-believers’ critique of the Bible. This alignment has never produced a change in materialists, but paves the road to disbelief by saying that God has nothing to do with this world, it just is.

Eliade 4

Israel's different take on history and 'gods'.