In Michael Jensen's blog, he announced recently his plan for a book on anthropology: interesting project; he also commented on the connection points with the doctrine of creation. I commented as follows:
Michael,
Sounds like a fabulous project; although I don't know that the doctrine of creation can be set as you've suggested: as more eclectic than the Doctrine of God, or as being integrative rather than comprehensive. If these poles determine your analysis, then I think that other than the polarities you have selected might be considered. For example, I don't think that the doctrine of creation is up for grabs in the eclectic manner you suggest here. The scriptures set it as definitive and determinative of the identity of God and the parameters of our relationship with God and each other. Therefore I think that some of your themes may need to be cast in a less individualistic, atomistic manner, and more in terms of the cluster of relationships which make the setting and sense of questions 1 and 6, particularly, but all as they hang off question 4.
I think Calvin brought creation and his doctrine of God into a close coupled arrangement, and indeed, it would be hard to see anything else in the scriptures, I would think; God provides the creation as his chief identifying element, and his credential for our worship of him; collecting other perspectives in an integrative manner, rather than for prophetic analysis, seems at odds with this.
However, it will be interesting to read your handling of literature in this context, particularly as most, particularly more modern works, seem to share with ancient pagan creation myths (and encapsulate it in the modern myth to which they implicitly refer and give credence: the idea of evolution) a conception of the totality of the material world, the 'given-ness' of the cosmos as a complete basis for our life and the reality in which we are embedded. Then going on to capture any conceptualisation of the divine as a comparative triviality completely captured by the over-arching material world, expressed in some sort of man-glorifying way as either unknowable or not worth really knowing, being merely some sort of cultural fabrication borne of ignorance, or at best, a folorn protest at the ultimate lonliness of persons in a cosmos which is finally impersonal.
However, knowing your acceptance that the idea of evolution is genuinely explanatory, and this cannot be prevented from being explanatory at all levels (contrary to the oxymoronic 'theistic-evolution'), I would fear that your project will more than tip its hat to the nostrums of materialism/naturalism and capture God to a human intellectual-aesthetic (not to say political) construction to remove him from his place as creator, in real terms. I would hope that it holds up the teleological barrenness that literature leaves man in when it denies God as real, or God as creator as he discloses in the early chapters of Genesis, then unfolds to provide the contraverting frame for the news of the new creation.
I touch on some of these issues in my blogs:
http://anglicanoriginsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2011/12/de-godding-creation.html
And also in Four Moves.
30 December 2011
24 December 2011
Remarkable Claims
Nice quote from Carl Sagan, ironically, at Herding Cats:
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.
OK, let's hear the remarkable 'proof' for:
I mean 'REMARKABLE' proof, not just the circumstantial hand waving we get instead.
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.
OK, let's hear the remarkable 'proof' for:
Evolution
Extra-terrestrials
Theistic evolution (evolution, really, but where's the biblical data...seriously!)
Big Bang
I mean 'REMARKABLE' proof, not just the circumstantial hand waving we get instead.
22 December 2011
De-godding the creation
Letter I sent to Dr Harbin, regarding his 1997 article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society "Thestic-Evolution"
I recently read your 1997 article in JETS on theistic evolution. I acknowledge that this was written some time ago, and that your interests may have shifted over the intervening period, but, on the assumption that you have maintained some connection with the thinking in this paper; I would like to offer some comments.
In a debate as complex and challenging as the one you have addressed, it was refreshing that you distinguished between different usages of the concept ‘evolution’. I also appreciated your canvassing of some of the more obvious theological issues (I say ‘more obvious’ not to downplay them, as I think much work remains to tease out the implications of the points that you made).
The nub of the problem, is, as you identify, that theistic evolution has more of evolution than ‘theism’, at least of the biblical variety, and subsumes biblical considerations under materialist/mechanistic ones.
A couple of aspects of the attempt to blend the biblical doctrine of creation and contemporary framing of the origins ‘story’, I think challenge how we understand God and his relation to us (which of course the salient issue of the fall and its counter in God’s redemption opens).
In brief, to assert evolution as basic to the formation of life as we see it, makes a representation about both God and the cosmos that differs from the representation that God himself makes in the Bible, at many points. It says something about God which God doesn’t say!
At root, it makes God not an author in direct relationship with his creation, contrary to what the Bible sets out, and the creation thus as consistent with who God is, but an author who is hidden, occulted by intervening principles which in themselves not just obscure his hand, but negate it entirely. Hard then to align evolution even if ‘theistic’ with God relying on his being creator as the basis of worship, especially throughout the prophets.
This voids the real dependence of the creation on the creator and allows the deist view to run riot and invert the relationship of creator and creature, to enclose the God within the creation, in effect; this is the critical failing of all the ANE creation myths that I’ve read in that they all presuppose a cosmos at some level.
In the creation account God sets out the marks of his activity (and ReMine, for example would say that the marks remain patent) in his close and immediate involvement with the components of the creation. They are not independent and not the result of mechanism, but all the result of intention at every point, underscoring that person-hood (God’s) is ontologically basic, whereas to push God into an occult role obscures this and proposes some 'principle' as basic, I think.
As a result, the cosmos is ‘de-godded’. God as an effective and involved creator: which one who is love would be expected to be, is removed, and a void is opened up that non-love, exemplified in materialism, fills; but it is a faux filling, because the filling is beyond human/personal engagement and is not relationally accessible (personal relationship, that is). It is an empty filling!
De-godding re-configures the cosmos, ‘reality’, in ontological terms, and the core of reality being God’s wisdom at work through love in relationship is gone, to be replaced by the echo of a plea for significance that seems to be pre-supposed in almost every human activity, and indeed extended to the rest of life that is arrayed for human attendtion (that is, in the presence of man as worshipping creature place over the creation to care for it).
De-godding also makes Adam’s naming the animals a meaningless gesture. With God patent and involved in the creation as we experience it (e.g. made the kinds of animals, not a pathway where chemicals could become cells, could become animals…maybe) the naming is steward’s response to his lord’s lovingly knowing his creation. Adam, therefore also now knows it in terms that are congruent with his being the steward.
A de-godded cosmos is one where God is no longer able to demonstrate his ‘god-ness’ to us for us to know him, but one where the focus of our gaze ends at the creature, and that in its mute form: dirt and energy, and tells us nothing about ourselves. Redemption then drifts to myth instead of re-connecting us with what really is.
Finally, if Genesis 1 doesn’t convey information about the cosmos, in terms that make sense in the cosmos, and correspond to what they claim to describe: that is events occurring in space and time, and predicated on the same categorical arrangement and space-time causality in relationships that we would meaningfully apply; then they tell us nothing, and cannot, by telling us something other than what happened, what in fact happened in summative terms contrary to the well worn irrationality that the creation account doesn’t tell us what God did, but that he is creator; well, he is only ‘creator’ on account of him telling us what he did. If we deny that, we deny that he is creator; which is where theistic-evolution must leave us.
I recently read your 1997 article in JETS on theistic evolution. I acknowledge that this was written some time ago, and that your interests may have shifted over the intervening period, but, on the assumption that you have maintained some connection with the thinking in this paper; I would like to offer some comments.
In a debate as complex and challenging as the one you have addressed, it was refreshing that you distinguished between different usages of the concept ‘evolution’. I also appreciated your canvassing of some of the more obvious theological issues (I say ‘more obvious’ not to downplay them, as I think much work remains to tease out the implications of the points that you made).
The nub of the problem, is, as you identify, that theistic evolution has more of evolution than ‘theism’, at least of the biblical variety, and subsumes biblical considerations under materialist/mechanistic ones.
A couple of aspects of the attempt to blend the biblical doctrine of creation and contemporary framing of the origins ‘story’, I think challenge how we understand God and his relation to us (which of course the salient issue of the fall and its counter in God’s redemption opens).
In brief, to assert evolution as basic to the formation of life as we see it, makes a representation about both God and the cosmos that differs from the representation that God himself makes in the Bible, at many points. It says something about God which God doesn’t say!
At root, it makes God not an author in direct relationship with his creation, contrary to what the Bible sets out, and the creation thus as consistent with who God is, but an author who is hidden, occulted by intervening principles which in themselves not just obscure his hand, but negate it entirely. Hard then to align evolution even if ‘theistic’ with God relying on his being creator as the basis of worship, especially throughout the prophets.
This voids the real dependence of the creation on the creator and allows the deist view to run riot and invert the relationship of creator and creature, to enclose the God within the creation, in effect; this is the critical failing of all the ANE creation myths that I’ve read in that they all presuppose a cosmos at some level.
In the creation account God sets out the marks of his activity (and ReMine, for example would say that the marks remain patent) in his close and immediate involvement with the components of the creation. They are not independent and not the result of mechanism, but all the result of intention at every point, underscoring that person-hood (God’s) is ontologically basic, whereas to push God into an occult role obscures this and proposes some 'principle' as basic, I think.
As a result, the cosmos is ‘de-godded’. God as an effective and involved creator: which one who is love would be expected to be, is removed, and a void is opened up that non-love, exemplified in materialism, fills; but it is a faux filling, because the filling is beyond human/personal engagement and is not relationally accessible (personal relationship, that is). It is an empty filling!
De-godding re-configures the cosmos, ‘reality’, in ontological terms, and the core of reality being God’s wisdom at work through love in relationship is gone, to be replaced by the echo of a plea for significance that seems to be pre-supposed in almost every human activity, and indeed extended to the rest of life that is arrayed for human attendtion (that is, in the presence of man as worshipping creature place over the creation to care for it).
De-godding also makes Adam’s naming the animals a meaningless gesture. With God patent and involved in the creation as we experience it (e.g. made the kinds of animals, not a pathway where chemicals could become cells, could become animals…maybe) the naming is steward’s response to his lord’s lovingly knowing his creation. Adam, therefore also now knows it in terms that are congruent with his being the steward.
A de-godded cosmos is one where God is no longer able to demonstrate his ‘god-ness’ to us for us to know him, but one where the focus of our gaze ends at the creature, and that in its mute form: dirt and energy, and tells us nothing about ourselves. Redemption then drifts to myth instead of re-connecting us with what really is.
Finally, if Genesis 1 doesn’t convey information about the cosmos, in terms that make sense in the cosmos, and correspond to what they claim to describe: that is events occurring in space and time, and predicated on the same categorical arrangement and space-time causality in relationships that we would meaningfully apply; then they tell us nothing, and cannot, by telling us something other than what happened, what in fact happened in summative terms contrary to the well worn irrationality that the creation account doesn’t tell us what God did, but that he is creator; well, he is only ‘creator’ on account of him telling us what he did. If we deny that, we deny that he is creator; which is where theistic-evolution must leave us.
25 November 2011
Why Leadership? #2
I got a reply to my previous post, and the writer wanted some background, so I rejoined with this:
My observations on 'leadership' come from years of ministry and advanced formal study in management.
The problem as we conceptualise the body of Christ (thus different from the pre-incarnation references to God's people) in terms that gives sense to 'leadership' is that we run, I think, the very risk that Mintzberg identifies as fatal to an enduring practice in any organisation, where one, or even a small group is stuck out the front or on a pedestal and isolation between leader and lead is created: the word itself does that; and renders everyone else a follower, induced to passivity; against how I think the biblical injunctions on church life would work.
The induction to passivity leads pretty quickly to the church coalescing around the 'priesthood' and ministry, the ministry of all believers, ceases to be the central motif of church life. It also gives the 'leader' an impossible job to do. Isolating this person from the coalition of mutual service that is in situational flux in the paradigmatic church. That is we take different roles with respect to one another as circumstances adjust. I've seen many a home group 'leader' feeling overburdened by the false responsibility they think they have, when if their service had been characterised, as it truly was, as 'convening', ministering or even just helping, their and the group life would have been simpler and more effective.
But, I think what disturbs me about the slide from talk about ministry to talk about leadership over the past 30 years, in my observation, is that we adopt organisational terminology which points away from the gospel. Thus my use of terms about my own experience above, which are community centric terms, not 'me-centric', I hope, and I hope my efforts have been genuinely of this manner, and the list I suggested in my first email to you. So, not 'youth leader' but youth minister/worker, not children's 'leader' (if there are any children's leaders, they are their parents), but children's worker, teacher...etc.
As I composed this list, I reflected on my admiration for my late father's trade union work. His union adopted terms for the service roles they had that reflected their beliefs about the way things should work. Oddly enough the 'leader' of the smallest unit (called a chapel) was the 'father'. They had organisers, delegates and similar roles, because they were all equally workers, and no one 'led' them!
So too in the church. If we are serious about our profession, I think that we must organise congruently with this profession. As soon as we say that there are leaders ('archon', is, I think the Greek equivalent word, and not used of church life in the NT) we say that there are followers; but we only follow Christ. Paul is clear on that as he teaches against party spirit; if we say there are leaders and followers, we also say that we have leadership, not community-ship (a coining by Mintzberg that I particularly like).
Thus, as I read the list regarding healthy church life...which list I've worked with in another denomination, I think, if a church has 'good leadership' that is expressed in the natural reading of the phrase, ministry will inevitably break down, the 'pastor' and elders will burn out and the church will dry up, the idea is a problem both terminologically and instrumentally. But what if a church was characterised by a resilient network of ministry groups? Much better I think, and very much what chimes with the NT church life exhortations.
A couple of references that may be of interest:
http://complexityandmanagement.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/hello-world/ and quite a few other posts
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/24/6/961.abstract (I can send you this article if you don't have access)
http://www.faithandleadership.com/multimedia/ronald-heifetz-the-nature-adaptive-leadership
My observations on 'leadership' come from years of ministry and advanced formal study in management.
The problem as we conceptualise the body of Christ (thus different from the pre-incarnation references to God's people) in terms that gives sense to 'leadership' is that we run, I think, the very risk that Mintzberg identifies as fatal to an enduring practice in any organisation, where one, or even a small group is stuck out the front or on a pedestal and isolation between leader and lead is created: the word itself does that; and renders everyone else a follower, induced to passivity; against how I think the biblical injunctions on church life would work.
The induction to passivity leads pretty quickly to the church coalescing around the 'priesthood' and ministry, the ministry of all believers, ceases to be the central motif of church life. It also gives the 'leader' an impossible job to do. Isolating this person from the coalition of mutual service that is in situational flux in the paradigmatic church. That is we take different roles with respect to one another as circumstances adjust. I've seen many a home group 'leader' feeling overburdened by the false responsibility they think they have, when if their service had been characterised, as it truly was, as 'convening', ministering or even just helping, their and the group life would have been simpler and more effective.
But, I think what disturbs me about the slide from talk about ministry to talk about leadership over the past 30 years, in my observation, is that we adopt organisational terminology which points away from the gospel. Thus my use of terms about my own experience above, which are community centric terms, not 'me-centric', I hope, and I hope my efforts have been genuinely of this manner, and the list I suggested in my first email to you. So, not 'youth leader' but youth minister/worker, not children's 'leader' (if there are any children's leaders, they are their parents), but children's worker, teacher...etc.
As I composed this list, I reflected on my admiration for my late father's trade union work. His union adopted terms for the service roles they had that reflected their beliefs about the way things should work. Oddly enough the 'leader' of the smallest unit (called a chapel) was the 'father'. They had organisers, delegates and similar roles, because they were all equally workers, and no one 'led' them!
So too in the church. If we are serious about our profession, I think that we must organise congruently with this profession. As soon as we say that there are leaders ('archon', is, I think the Greek equivalent word, and not used of church life in the NT) we say that there are followers; but we only follow Christ. Paul is clear on that as he teaches against party spirit; if we say there are leaders and followers, we also say that we have leadership, not community-ship (a coining by Mintzberg that I particularly like).
Thus, as I read the list regarding healthy church life...which list I've worked with in another denomination, I think, if a church has 'good leadership' that is expressed in the natural reading of the phrase, ministry will inevitably break down, the 'pastor' and elders will burn out and the church will dry up, the idea is a problem both terminologically and instrumentally. But what if a church was characterised by a resilient network of ministry groups? Much better I think, and very much what chimes with the NT church life exhortations.
A couple of references that may be of interest:
http://complexityandmanagement.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/hello-world/ and quite a few other posts
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/24/6/961.abstract (I can send you this article if you don't have access)
http://www.faithandleadership.com/multimedia/ronald-heifetz-the-nature-adaptive-leadership
20 November 2011
Why Leadership?
I read with interest you piece on the healthy church in the current issue of Together.
Lists that motivate action are always helpful, and one could probably not disagree with your nine points, even though we would all probably give the phrases differing understandings.
But, I do disagree with one of them: point 2 "empowering leadership". I think that there is much wrong with this notion from many perspectives.
I will, however, be brief, and argue that I don't find this concept in the New Testament at all. All I find there is a charismatic community: joint 'leadership' at work, if we must still use this term. It is a great concern that we've imported into our conceptualisation of church, and rather uncritically, the worldly concept of 'leadership'. And its not even uncontested in the world of business organisation, whence it came.
Refer to this article by Henry Mintzberg, for instance: http://www.oxfordleadership.com/journal/vol1_issue2/mintzberg.pdf, and this one:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c917c904-6041-11db-a716-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=8d70957c-6288-11db-8faa-0000779e2340.html#axzz1bDm1PwMc
What the concept of leadership does in a church is instantly disempower everyone, no matter how 'empowering' it sets out to be. The paradox is, that if a 'leader' wants to empower, they must think that they have the power to give out. I don't think that this is the case scripturally, or in terms of the sociology of congregational organisations, such in your denomination.
With the joint exercise of ministry, a healthy church will not have a 'leader', someone who has the ideas, gives out power, forges into the future, because we are lead as a church by the Holy Spirit. I would not want to usurp this role.
Now, its a pity that our adherence to the scriptures does not permeate the way we think about ourselves as organisation. Our language should reflect our beliefs. We don't have leaders, we have organisers, coordinators, helpers, facilitators, teachers, convenors, moderators (a good concept in the Presbyterian church that has morphed into 'leader' unfortunately), delegates and above all, ministers: servants of the people of God. And we don't have that awful oxymoron, the 'servant-leader' which is a trick of business rhetoric and has no real meaning within a church context.
Lists that motivate action are always helpful, and one could probably not disagree with your nine points, even though we would all probably give the phrases differing understandings.
But, I do disagree with one of them: point 2 "empowering leadership". I think that there is much wrong with this notion from many perspectives.
I will, however, be brief, and argue that I don't find this concept in the New Testament at all. All I find there is a charismatic community: joint 'leadership' at work, if we must still use this term. It is a great concern that we've imported into our conceptualisation of church, and rather uncritically, the worldly concept of 'leadership'. And its not even uncontested in the world of business organisation, whence it came.
Refer to this article by Henry Mintzberg, for instance: http://www.oxfordleadership.com/journal/vol1_issue2/mintzberg.pdf, and this one:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c917c904-6041-11db-a716-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=8d70957c-6288-11db-8faa-0000779e2340.html#axzz1bDm1PwMc
What the concept of leadership does in a church is instantly disempower everyone, no matter how 'empowering' it sets out to be. The paradox is, that if a 'leader' wants to empower, they must think that they have the power to give out. I don't think that this is the case scripturally, or in terms of the sociology of congregational organisations, such in your denomination.
With the joint exercise of ministry, a healthy church will not have a 'leader', someone who has the ideas, gives out power, forges into the future, because we are lead as a church by the Holy Spirit. I would not want to usurp this role.
Now, its a pity that our adherence to the scriptures does not permeate the way we think about ourselves as organisation. Our language should reflect our beliefs. We don't have leaders, we have organisers, coordinators, helpers, facilitators, teachers, convenors, moderators (a good concept in the Presbyterian church that has morphed into 'leader' unfortunately), delegates and above all, ministers: servants of the people of God. And we don't have that awful oxymoron, the 'servant-leader' which is a trick of business rhetoric and has no real meaning within a church context.
10 November 2011
Don't know...maybe
Mick Jensen, in a recent article in Eternity magazine claimed that it's OK for Christians not to be certain about everything.
Well, of course, but by what epistemological slight of hand do we extend that to the Bible and overturn its literary clarity?
For instance, Michael was asked a while ago if he thought that Noah's flood occured. His answer? "Maybe".
Well, where did 'maybe' come from? On what basis does he set aside the biblical information for some other information? and where does this hermeneutical project draw its lines?
I have a fairly good feeling that he would think that uncertainty about the basic doctrine of the creation has a similar status: that is, the uncertainty is acceptable. Only this time we're not considering a trifle, but something that is basic about God, us and what connects us.
Mc'Neill puts it nicely, talking of Calvin:
Calvin de-abstracts the God which I think idealist views such as I think MJ entertains make increasingly theoretical and detached from the real interactions grounded in his word-acts in Genesis 1. The creation is about connection, its deconstruction evaporates this and isolates man from God, undoing the connection that is patent in the text.
So here, I think the Bible expects us to have certainty. If we want uncertainty, we can only achieve that by an arbitrary epistemological move, a move, I think, against the revelatory capacity of the Spirit, and one that muddles the historical stream of relations between God and man.
I've also talked about this in the four moves between God and man.
Well, of course, but by what epistemological slight of hand do we extend that to the Bible and overturn its literary clarity?
For instance, Michael was asked a while ago if he thought that Noah's flood occured. His answer? "Maybe".
Well, where did 'maybe' come from? On what basis does he set aside the biblical information for some other information? and where does this hermeneutical project draw its lines?
I have a fairly good feeling that he would think that uncertainty about the basic doctrine of the creation has a similar status: that is, the uncertainty is acceptable. Only this time we're not considering a trifle, but something that is basic about God, us and what connects us.
Mc'Neill puts it nicely, talking of Calvin:
Throughout his thought a judgement of the nature of man accompanies the doctrine of God; theology is linked with anthropology. God is not for a moment conceived merely as the author and ruler of the universe, but always as Creator and Redeemer of man. God's resources answer man's need.
Calvin de-abstracts the God which I think idealist views such as I think MJ entertains make increasingly theoretical and detached from the real interactions grounded in his word-acts in Genesis 1. The creation is about connection, its deconstruction evaporates this and isolates man from God, undoing the connection that is patent in the text.
So here, I think the Bible expects us to have certainty. If we want uncertainty, we can only achieve that by an arbitrary epistemological move, a move, I think, against the revelatory capacity of the Spirit, and one that muddles the historical stream of relations between God and man.
I've also talked about this in the four moves between God and man.
6 November 2011
2 November 2011
Unam Sanctam
In the Bull of 1302, Pope Boniface said:
Now, PB was talking about Manichaeans, but the observation applies eminiently to the philosophy of origins. He was right, Moses in scripture conveys a unitry principle of and in creation: God's speaking in wisdom and love producing one entire creation de novo: no room for alternative principles, such as idealism, materialism or naturo-mysticism. When attempts are made to mix the unified creation with materialism, we get an attempt at two principles going at once: incoherent, crazy and undoing Christ, who is the creator!
I have to wonder at people like our esteemed Archbishop, who think that the notion of the two mixing is somehow rational! Of course Christ diluted is Christ eliminated. Not Good Peter!
..he pretends that there are two prinicples, which doctrine we judge to be false and heretical because, as Moses testifies, God created heaven and earth not in several but in one prinicple.
Now, PB was talking about Manichaeans, but the observation applies eminiently to the philosophy of origins. He was right, Moses in scripture conveys a unitry principle of and in creation: God's speaking in wisdom and love producing one entire creation de novo: no room for alternative principles, such as idealism, materialism or naturo-mysticism. When attempts are made to mix the unified creation with materialism, we get an attempt at two principles going at once: incoherent, crazy and undoing Christ, who is the creator!
I have to wonder at people like our esteemed Archbishop, who think that the notion of the two mixing is somehow rational! Of course Christ diluted is Christ eliminated. Not Good Peter!
30 October 2011
Growing Science
From The World of the Reformation by Hillerbrand:
Protestant learning enjoyed the advantage of not being unduly restricted by the weight of tradition. It was able to explore new avenues. that the Nuremberg reformer Andreas Osiander contributed a preface to Copernicus's famous work on The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, in which he defended the scientist's right to offer hypotheses, is worthy of note in this connection.
27 October 2011
Sistine Chapel
Another from Elton's Reformation Europe:
Now, of course, the 'answer' is not God, not a person, not the one who is love, and makes our love of value, but the universe ourself...a mere pile of powder, albeit a big one, above which nothing can rise!
The God of the Sistine Chapel is the pre-Reformation God: man's answer to the problem of the universe.
Now, of course, the 'answer' is not God, not a person, not the one who is love, and makes our love of value, but the universe ourself...a mere pile of powder, albeit a big one, above which nothing can rise!
24 October 2011
the world ends
Quote from David Byrne's blog:
“The end of the world happens every time somebody dies.”
Something for a theologian to do something with, although, an atheist (or en evolutionist, for that matter), of course, could do nothing with it.
So, where would that leave the Archibisop of Sydney, given that he's an evolutionist and there's no between category.
“The end of the world happens every time somebody dies.”
Something for a theologian to do something with, although, an atheist (or en evolutionist, for that matter), of course, could do nothing with it.
So, where would that leave the Archibisop of Sydney, given that he's an evolutionist and there's no between category.
20 October 2011
Reformation Europe
Quotes from Elton's Reformation Europe:
Reminds me of so much that is said of evolution!
Same again!
The revival of Greek studies might add to the number of authorities consulted, but it did not encourage any idea of criticising received knowledge by personal observation...astrology deserves to be called the specific science of the humanist.
Reminds me of so much that is said of evolution!
it is now thought that he probably arrived at his revolutionary notion by pure reasoning, without any scientific investigation. This is a method which has yielded as much error as truth, and in the sixteenth century reasoned error predominated.
Same again!
15 October 2011
Theistic evolution #2
I mentioned TE a while ago, but I've moved on a little, and think that the term should be expunged from discussion. Once Christ is mixed with another 'principle'; in this case, the principle that not only did the Word create, but the creation created itself, Christ is diminished. So, there can't be two creators: Christ and the creation; with separate ontologies, but only one.
So, if a Christian thinks that the two can mix, then I think they are referring to a 'god' other than the creator, and so they are only referring to evolution.
So, if a Christian thinks that the two can mix, then I think they are referring to a 'god' other than the creator, and so they are only referring to evolution.
10 October 2011
Open letter to Peter Jensen: atheism debate
Dear Peter,
I followed with interest your recent participation in the 'atheist' debate. One remark that you made in that debate caught my attention.
You said:
Thus, it is not with evolution as science that I have a problem; it is with evolution as an idolatrous explanation of all things; it confuses mechanism with agency; science with theology.
It seems from this that you regard ‘evolution’ as being restricted to mere biological machinery descriptive of, for instance, the development of new species, or indeed, all life from just one cell. I get the impression that you conceptualise this within a basically creationist frame of reference: that is, you hold that God created, although, possibly not as the Bible sets out (how one could know that God did create, or that it was God who did the creating, when what is currently claimed about the universe's origin, and seemingly accepted by many Christians does not line up with scripture is not entirely clear, but that is another matter).
The fearful thing is that your position allows the unravelling of any proclamatory opportunity by its acceptance of the materialist framing of being when discussion of origins arises (as it did in the speech by Russell Blackford). As soon as it is denied that Genesis gives any information about the history of the cosmos, the biblical conceptualisation of the compass of God and our existential ground is unseated, the point of contact between a real God taking real action in making then redeeming the world, for real effect is gone and the way to repentance is effectively closed. This is denial, in short, that there is any possible objective concrete reference in Genesis 1 to real events or the world we stand in and where God’s covenant is operative.
As soon as we say that Genesis conveys truth, but not in the only information that it presents, we invite the materialist to maintain his conceptualisation of the world and find no place for God. This comes about because we say that the world can at once be created with the only representation of this in the detail set out in Genesis 1, by a God who is love, and for loving reasons, and be the aimless product of random material interactions, and full of un-love, at the same time.
This hardly brings glory to God. Modern evolutionary atheism is clear on this: it sees no place for the glory of God in an evolved world, only ‘facts’ that show there is no god (a stark example of this is provided by Sommers and Rosenberg in “Darwin’s nihilistic idea: evolution and the meaninglessness of life” Biology and Philosophy 18: 2003)!
And it doesn’t help to grasp at analogical views of Genesis 1 to hope to change this. These end up not explaining the text, but explaining it away. Thus, ‘framework’ type views are ‘anti-exegetical’: in that they deny the intersection of the text and the real world of sin and relationship, rather than prophetically position us within it.
So, what is happening here?
I think we must reach back into the Enlightenment “project” to tease this out.
In your remark you seem to have bought the Enlightenment story, without acknowledging that it starts with a complete disjunct between rationality inherited from its biblically inspired forebears, and the Bible itself, attempting instead to find a rational ground in humanist terms: the biblical basis is removed, but its effects are forlornly held on to.
To save its scheme, the Enlightenment needed to find a substitute basis for the real and us in it that was independent of a creator, or at least a creator-person. It found this, after not to much searching, in rehabilitating the ancient Greek notion of a universe that is truly ontologically independent and that necessarily, made itself. Thus is the evolutionary principle around which the modern world turns.
For you to then express a concern that the modern world wants evolution to be more than a minor mechanical detail of biological change and adaptation could only evoke puzzled looks from its proponents: that’s the very point of it! Evolution is a totalising world view that explains, and is relied upon to explain, the origin and nature of the universe purely in terms of the universe itself. It has reduced God, if he is to be given any place at all, to a result of matter (brain activity), completely captured within the bounds of the cosmos and entailed by it, at best. Certainly not separate from it, not holy, not to be glorified and worshipped, from whom there can have been no separation, against whom death is neither a breach nor the last enemy, and to whom is owed nothing at all.
In the end, your remarks betray two mistakes about evolution.
Firstly, you think that it is just the mechanical detail of life within a basically Christian conception of the world. Not so, as it proposes completely different things about the real world from those in Genesis 1, in the main.
Secondly, you seem to confine evolution to science alone, cutting it off from wider questions. In fact, it starts as a metaphysical principle and ends, not as science, which it never was, but as a metaphysical setting for all experience that pursues the material (“now, let’s suppose that the universe is not the result of intention, but is completely explained by naturalistic processes”), and rejects the personal, let alone the supernatural, as basic to being. Evolution is an overarching materialist conceptualisation of the world, counter at every point to the Christian one.
Post the Enlightenment; it is a methodologically pagan program that is, as Mary Midgley, the British philosopher, pointed out in ‘Evolution as a Religion’, the creation myth of the modern Western mind. It is the idea that now provides the cultural and intellectual reference point for art, literature, intellectual enquiry (including theology, I must add; yours being an example), and human relations. It has nothing to do with anything that the creator God reveals about himself, the world or our redemption.
Also on creation and the Christian starting point.
I followed with interest your recent participation in the 'atheist' debate. One remark that you made in that debate caught my attention.
You said:
Thus, it is not with evolution as science that I have a problem; it is with evolution as an idolatrous explanation of all things; it confuses mechanism with agency; science with theology.
It seems from this that you regard ‘evolution’ as being restricted to mere biological machinery descriptive of, for instance, the development of new species, or indeed, all life from just one cell. I get the impression that you conceptualise this within a basically creationist frame of reference: that is, you hold that God created, although, possibly not as the Bible sets out (how one could know that God did create, or that it was God who did the creating, when what is currently claimed about the universe's origin, and seemingly accepted by many Christians does not line up with scripture is not entirely clear, but that is another matter).
The fearful thing is that your position allows the unravelling of any proclamatory opportunity by its acceptance of the materialist framing of being when discussion of origins arises (as it did in the speech by Russell Blackford). As soon as it is denied that Genesis gives any information about the history of the cosmos, the biblical conceptualisation of the compass of God and our existential ground is unseated, the point of contact between a real God taking real action in making then redeeming the world, for real effect is gone and the way to repentance is effectively closed. This is denial, in short, that there is any possible objective concrete reference in Genesis 1 to real events or the world we stand in and where God’s covenant is operative.
As soon as we say that Genesis conveys truth, but not in the only information that it presents, we invite the materialist to maintain his conceptualisation of the world and find no place for God. This comes about because we say that the world can at once be created with the only representation of this in the detail set out in Genesis 1, by a God who is love, and for loving reasons, and be the aimless product of random material interactions, and full of un-love, at the same time.
This hardly brings glory to God. Modern evolutionary atheism is clear on this: it sees no place for the glory of God in an evolved world, only ‘facts’ that show there is no god (a stark example of this is provided by Sommers and Rosenberg in “Darwin’s nihilistic idea: evolution and the meaninglessness of life” Biology and Philosophy 18: 2003)!
And it doesn’t help to grasp at analogical views of Genesis 1 to hope to change this. These end up not explaining the text, but explaining it away. Thus, ‘framework’ type views are ‘anti-exegetical’: in that they deny the intersection of the text and the real world of sin and relationship, rather than prophetically position us within it.
So, what is happening here?
I think we must reach back into the Enlightenment “project” to tease this out.
In your remark you seem to have bought the Enlightenment story, without acknowledging that it starts with a complete disjunct between rationality inherited from its biblically inspired forebears, and the Bible itself, attempting instead to find a rational ground in humanist terms: the biblical basis is removed, but its effects are forlornly held on to.
To save its scheme, the Enlightenment needed to find a substitute basis for the real and us in it that was independent of a creator, or at least a creator-person. It found this, after not to much searching, in rehabilitating the ancient Greek notion of a universe that is truly ontologically independent and that necessarily, made itself. Thus is the evolutionary principle around which the modern world turns.
For you to then express a concern that the modern world wants evolution to be more than a minor mechanical detail of biological change and adaptation could only evoke puzzled looks from its proponents: that’s the very point of it! Evolution is a totalising world view that explains, and is relied upon to explain, the origin and nature of the universe purely in terms of the universe itself. It has reduced God, if he is to be given any place at all, to a result of matter (brain activity), completely captured within the bounds of the cosmos and entailed by it, at best. Certainly not separate from it, not holy, not to be glorified and worshipped, from whom there can have been no separation, against whom death is neither a breach nor the last enemy, and to whom is owed nothing at all.
In the end, your remarks betray two mistakes about evolution.
Firstly, you think that it is just the mechanical detail of life within a basically Christian conception of the world. Not so, as it proposes completely different things about the real world from those in Genesis 1, in the main.
Secondly, you seem to confine evolution to science alone, cutting it off from wider questions. In fact, it starts as a metaphysical principle and ends, not as science, which it never was, but as a metaphysical setting for all experience that pursues the material (“now, let’s suppose that the universe is not the result of intention, but is completely explained by naturalistic processes”), and rejects the personal, let alone the supernatural, as basic to being. Evolution is an overarching materialist conceptualisation of the world, counter at every point to the Christian one.
Post the Enlightenment; it is a methodologically pagan program that is, as Mary Midgley, the British philosopher, pointed out in ‘Evolution as a Religion’, the creation myth of the modern Western mind. It is the idea that now provides the cultural and intellectual reference point for art, literature, intellectual enquiry (including theology, I must add; yours being an example), and human relations. It has nothing to do with anything that the creator God reveals about himself, the world or our redemption.
Also on creation and the Christian starting point.
Ancient Error
This appeared in the SMH letters: John Dickson is a member of the Centre for Public Christianity and a Sydney Anglican clergyperson. He is probably most well known here for his heterodox views of Genesis 1; yet in his own field:
Not-so-ancient error
Having also waded in ancient literature on ethics, I must advise John Dickson (''And the last shall be first - why leaders thrive on humble pie'', October 7) that the Athenian statesman Pericles certainly never lamented how little influence he had compared with Demosthenes. Pericles died nearly half a century before Demosthenes was born.
Back in fourth century BC Athens, Demosthenes and Aeschines were the Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott of their day, and it was the modern advertising executive David Ogilvy who observed: ''When Aeschines spoke they said 'How well he speaks'; but when Demosthenes spoke they said 'Let us march'.'' As an academic in the department of ancient history at one of our prominent universities, it is Dr Dickson who will be eating the humble pie, I'm afraid.
Julian Holden Turramurra
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/pity-were-not-as-concerned-for-foreign-children-20111009-1lfmg.html#ixzz1aLW6nivy
Not-so-ancient error
Having also waded in ancient literature on ethics, I must advise John Dickson (''And the last shall be first - why leaders thrive on humble pie'', October 7) that the Athenian statesman Pericles certainly never lamented how little influence he had compared with Demosthenes. Pericles died nearly half a century before Demosthenes was born.
Back in fourth century BC Athens, Demosthenes and Aeschines were the Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott of their day, and it was the modern advertising executive David Ogilvy who observed: ''When Aeschines spoke they said 'How well he speaks'; but when Demosthenes spoke they said 'Let us march'.'' As an academic in the department of ancient history at one of our prominent universities, it is Dr Dickson who will be eating the humble pie, I'm afraid.
Julian Holden Turramurra
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/pity-were-not-as-concerned-for-foreign-children-20111009-1lfmg.html#ixzz1aLW6nivy
1 October 2011
Where do we go now?
As I was reading back through Al Mohler's blog, I came to this article on a recent Templeton Prize winner. It illustrates the end game of the opening canvassed by Peter Jensen in a recent debate: Peter starts by thinking that the evolutionary speculations can somehow be isolated from an evolutionary world view (well, they can, in a unreflective denial of their mutually exclusive bases). He thinks this will end in the glory of God. Al's blog illustrates that in fact, it goes the other way; unwittingly and ironically paving the road to perdition.
30 September 2011
Is that all that is at stake?
In this post by Al Mohler, he talks about the importance of the historical place of actual Adam and Eve, something fast eroding in even evangelical circles; or likely be the next on the list of 'it aint history' in Genesis 1-11. The results are illustrated in Al's quotes in the article
29 September 2011
28 September 2011
Consensus
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled ... the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world ... Consensus is invoked only where the science is not solid enough ... Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Michael Crichton, 2003 Caltech lecture "Aliens Cause Global Warming"
Michael Crichton, 2003 Caltech lecture "Aliens Cause Global Warming"
25 September 2011
Archbishop off the rails
At the “Intelligence Squared” public debate held a little while ago in Sydney there were six speakers; 3 spoke for the motion “Atheists are wrong”; 3 against, but this Peter Jensen quote from his presentation followed by an extract from Russell Blackford’s later address highlights the strategic vulnerability of Jensen’s agnosticsm-based doctrine of creation.
Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen: Thus, it is not with evolution as science that I have a problem; it is with evolution as an idolatrous explanation of all things; it confuses mechanism with agency; science with theology.
Now, the AB clearly has a content-less doctrine of creation here; not seemingly aware of this aspect of the doctrine, that reality; or all that created; is ontologically isotropic; and congruently exhibits a uniformity of causal transactions. He seems to think that the one reality is open to different basic descriptions, or different natures: that is, one is like God (in the Bible) and the other is not like God. Blackford, below, picks this up (and interestingly, his evolutionary way does not result in God's being glorified, which tends to rule it out as having any part of the creation) noting that evolutionary doctrines are disjunctive with the world having been very good before man's fall. He regards the fall as fictional, of course; so he is left with a world that is temporally replete with suffering. Jensen is left in this place too, with no connection between the real world and a history that does not embed enmity between creation and God.
And its not even that he needs to discuss science: he's committed the error of the two magisteria here; playing right into the atheist trap; pity he doesn't have sufficient confidence in the revelation of God to set his revelation in the history of his actions in relation to us to whom he reveals himself and out of that bring a critique of atheist nonsense and its self refuting implications.
Dr Russell Blackford [part-way into his presentation]: As we survey all the world's horrible circumstances, the endlessly varied kinds of excruciating pain, the deep suffering and sheer misery, inflicted on so many human beings and other vulnerable living things, it is not believable that a God of Love would have remotely adequate reasons to permit it all.
And it's no use responding to such questions with talk of free will. If free will means anything, it means being able to act in accordance with your own nature and values.
God is supposed to have free will, and yet we are assured by theologians that God will never act malevolently because it is not in his nature to do so. God will always freely choose to do good.
Well, why wouldn't God create other beings with benevolent natures who will also freely choose to do good? Heaven is supposed to be like that, so why isn't Earth?
And anyway, only a relatively small amount of the suffering there has been in the world over hundreds of millions of years could possibly have anything to do with the free choices of human beings.
Why has an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love brought about the world's current life forms through the process of biological evolution, which has, as God could have foreseen, led to untold misery in the animal world? Why would God choose this as the process to bring about beings like us?
Biologists tell us that the evolutionary process inevitably produces design flaws - often painful or debilitating for the creatures concerned. These are present everywhere in the natural world, and in fact in the human genome itself.
These flaws are just part of the evidence that life on Earth has diversified over time through the blind process of evolution, rather than being the product of a guiding intelligence.
So why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose a process that foreseeably produces so many atrocious outcomes for the creatures involved?
Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose the cruel, brutal operation of evolution, in which species supersede each other? You can't reconcile the process of evolution with the existence of such a god.
Indeed, in Blackford’s comments introducing the above extract he scornfully taunted his Christian opponents’ lack of faith:
Russell Blackford: In fact, though, they [Peter Jensen, Tracey Rowland, Scott Stephens] seem to have shown a lack of faith. None of the traditional arguments for the existence of God have been relied upon - they seem to have no faith in those arguments.
Indeed, no argument of any kind for the existence of a god was developed by them in any concerted way.
The transcripts: Jensen's and Blackford’s.
,
Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen: Thus, it is not with evolution as science that I have a problem; it is with evolution as an idolatrous explanation of all things; it confuses mechanism with agency; science with theology.
Now, the AB clearly has a content-less doctrine of creation here; not seemingly aware of this aspect of the doctrine, that reality; or all that created; is ontologically isotropic; and congruently exhibits a uniformity of causal transactions. He seems to think that the one reality is open to different basic descriptions, or different natures: that is, one is like God (in the Bible) and the other is not like God. Blackford, below, picks this up (and interestingly, his evolutionary way does not result in God's being glorified, which tends to rule it out as having any part of the creation) noting that evolutionary doctrines are disjunctive with the world having been very good before man's fall. He regards the fall as fictional, of course; so he is left with a world that is temporally replete with suffering. Jensen is left in this place too, with no connection between the real world and a history that does not embed enmity between creation and God.
And its not even that he needs to discuss science: he's committed the error of the two magisteria here; playing right into the atheist trap; pity he doesn't have sufficient confidence in the revelation of God to set his revelation in the history of his actions in relation to us to whom he reveals himself and out of that bring a critique of atheist nonsense and its self refuting implications.
Dr Russell Blackford [part-way into his presentation]: As we survey all the world's horrible circumstances, the endlessly varied kinds of excruciating pain, the deep suffering and sheer misery, inflicted on so many human beings and other vulnerable living things, it is not believable that a God of Love would have remotely adequate reasons to permit it all.
And it's no use responding to such questions with talk of free will. If free will means anything, it means being able to act in accordance with your own nature and values.
God is supposed to have free will, and yet we are assured by theologians that God will never act malevolently because it is not in his nature to do so. God will always freely choose to do good.
Well, why wouldn't God create other beings with benevolent natures who will also freely choose to do good? Heaven is supposed to be like that, so why isn't Earth?
And anyway, only a relatively small amount of the suffering there has been in the world over hundreds of millions of years could possibly have anything to do with the free choices of human beings.
Why has an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love brought about the world's current life forms through the process of biological evolution, which has, as God could have foreseen, led to untold misery in the animal world? Why would God choose this as the process to bring about beings like us?
Biologists tell us that the evolutionary process inevitably produces design flaws - often painful or debilitating for the creatures concerned. These are present everywhere in the natural world, and in fact in the human genome itself.
These flaws are just part of the evidence that life on Earth has diversified over time through the blind process of evolution, rather than being the product of a guiding intelligence.
So why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose a process that foreseeably produces so many atrocious outcomes for the creatures involved?
Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose the cruel, brutal operation of evolution, in which species supersede each other? You can't reconcile the process of evolution with the existence of such a god.
Indeed, in Blackford’s comments introducing the above extract he scornfully taunted his Christian opponents’ lack of faith:
Russell Blackford: In fact, though, they [Peter Jensen, Tracey Rowland, Scott Stephens] seem to have shown a lack of faith. None of the traditional arguments for the existence of God have been relied upon - they seem to have no faith in those arguments.
Indeed, no argument of any kind for the existence of a god was developed by them in any concerted way.
The transcripts: Jensen's and Blackford’s.
,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)