There is No Conflict Between Science and Faith

A Must Read: Plantinga’s Gifford Lectures: “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/a-must-read-plantingas-gifford-lectures-where-the-conflict-really-lies-science-religion-and-naturalism/

 

by Roger Olson

December 7, 2012

Comments

 

A Must Read: Plantinga’s Gifford Lectures: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism.

 

Recently I wrote about a long forgotten and neglected theology book that has fortunately been taken out of the “cemetery of forgotten books” and republished (Adrio König’s Here Am I!) right now I am about half way through a book that should never suffer that fate (and need such a resurrection). Well known Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga delivered Gifford Lectures at St. Andrews University in 2005; Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2011) is based on those lectures. Plantinga states his central thesis thus:

 

“there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion,

but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” (p. ix)

 

Obviously, since I have not finished the book (it’s not an easy read and must be read slowly) I cannot review it thoroughly. My intention here is only to recommend it. I also confess that I’m not expert enough in either philosophy or science to evaluate it thoroughly competently. All I can say is that I have so far not found any flaw or fault in Plantinga’s arguments and would like to know what those are if anyone thinks he or she has found one or more. For the most part, the author is providing philosophical arguments to support what I and most other conservative (very broadly defined) Christians have always believed -

 

that there is no essential conflict between true science, that is science

when it is true, and essential, that is “mere,” Christian theism.

 

I picked up this book with a bit of reluctance for two reasons. First, I’m not that excited about apologetics or philosophical theism. My own theological orientation trends more toward what evangelical theologian Donald G. Bloesch infelicitously called “fideistic revelationism” or “revelational fideism” (I don’t remember which but either phrase could describe it).

[*fideism. noun. "exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith,

with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy."]

That is, I tend to agree with

 

• Pascal about the God of the philosophers not being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”

 

and with

 

• Kierkegaard that authentic Christianity is always a leap of faith, a risk, involving commitment that transcends reason.

 

However, I also tend to think that Christianity cannot be irrational and that the proper role of apologetics is to demonstrate that. There I agree with, for example, Hans Küng in Does God Exist? An Answer for Today. Küng argues that belief in God, especially the Christian God, is not amenable to rationalism. That is, there are no (and need not be) absolute, knock-down, drag-out proofs of God’s existence such that anyone who thinks otherwise is being irrational. However, Küng argues, and I agree, that, overall and in general, believing in God is more consistent with reason insofar as nihilism is not an option than atheism. I think reason can be an ally of Christian faith in removing the false stumbling blocks modernity has put in the path to faith.

 

Plantinga’s book is of that nature. That is, it does not seem to be an exercise in critical rationalism (a lá Popper) or even foundationalism but an exercise in Reformed epistemology. According to Plantinga, it can be shown rationally that belief in God is rationally justified basic belief that needs no proof (like belief in other minds) and that so far, anyway, nothing true in philosophy or science has undermined belief in God.

 

Plantinga’s basic argument can be summed up this way: All the alleged scientific and philosophical arguments against belief in God and miracles are presuppositional and perspectival. Nothing that is truly scientific about science, for example, undermines belief in God or miracles. All that atheists can base allegedly scientific arguments against God on are philosophical, “worldviewish,” metaphysical add ons to science that carry no more weight than belief in God itself. The same can be said for miracles. Nothing about either Newtonian science or quantum physics really conflicts with belief in miracles. All the objections raised against miracles, including those by modern naturalistic theologians (e.g., Bultmann), are of a non-scientific nature.

 

Ultimately, what Plantinga is demonstrating step-by-step, very logically, is that there is no real conflict between real science and Christian theism, including miracles but only between naturalism and Christian theism and that not only is naturalism not essential to science, it is actually in conflict with science!

 

Now, as I said, all I really want to do here is recommend Plantinga’s book. I’m not going to get into the details of his arguments. I happen to think they are valid. But I do want to mention one specific point he makes on pages 52-54. In this section of Chapter 2 “Evolution and Christian Belief” Plantinga asks (and answers) “Why Do People Doubt Evolution?” Here he suggests that one major reason is because leading evolutionists have wrongly linked evolution with naturalism such that (they have implied if not outrightly stated) the two are inseparable. Leading evolutionary theorists and popularizers of evolution have wrongly taught that in order to accept evolution one must reject God as playing any role in designing and guiding the processes of emergence of life forms. Because this idea, that either atheism or deism is necessary for belief in evolution, has caught on, the believing public has to a very large extent reacted against evolution. “The vast majority of Americans are Christians, and many more (some 88 or 90 percent, depending on the poll you favor) believe in God. But when that choir of experts repeatedly tell us that evolution is incompatible with belief in God, it’s not surprising that many people come to believe that evolution is incompatible with belief in God, and is therefore an enemy of religion.” (p. 53)

 

Anyone who knows anything about Plantinga and his careful, precise, step-by-step way of arguing a point knows that I cannot begin to do justice to his arguments (stated overly simply above) here. I strongly recommend that people read the book; in my opinion, it completely clears away the rubble of false stumbling blocks to faith in God and miracles put there by naturalistic scientists, philosophers and theologians. It does not and does not intend to “prove” the existence of God or miracles. But it demonstrates that there is a large element of fideism involved in the arguments against God’s existence and miracles. There are, in other words, identifiable unsupported presuppositions smuggled into the arguments against them. Plantinga reveals what they are and shows they are not necessary to the integrities of science, philosophy or theology.

 

I’m sure someone will be tempted to remind me (or tell me, as if I didn’t know) that Plantinga is a Calvinist. Indeed. He’s even a supralapsarian! And he implies that all Christians (meaning, of course, all real Christians) embrace meticulous providence. (He quotes from the Heidelberg Catechism as if that were the doctrinal standard for all Christians.) But, I have never said or implied that Calvinists are wrong about everything; I have learned much from and appreciated the writings of many Calvinist authors and theologians. It’s the aggressive Calvinists who teach (directly or indirectly) that only Calvinism is authentic, biblical Christianity that I oppose. I also oppose Calvinism as it relates to soteriology, but that’s not the subject of Plantinga’s book and his arguments are not tied to it.

 

Now, as often, I have to stop and tell a story. I’ve lived long enough in this world of theology to have a lot of them to tell! (I could tell, for example, about the two world class theologians who argued with each other standing right in front of me. One of them was drunk and cursed the other one out. Or I could tell about the world class theologian who said very publically about theology “After all, it’s all just guess work.”) One time I saw and heard Plantinga attempt to engage in “dialogue” with Paul Holmer, a Wittgensteinian fideist or at least postliberal theologian. Never have I witnessed a better example of “two ships passing in the night.” It was an amazing spectacle of the proverbial “whale” and “elephant” attempting to meet. Two giants of Christian thought and they might as well have each been speaking in tongues to each other. Very obviously, neither one could make any sense of the other one because of their radically different presuppositions and methods of thinking and talking about God. For example, in true Kierkegaardian fashion, for Holmer, God can never be an object. It’s not just that we should never “make” God into an object; God cannot be an object so that when we attempt to talk about God in objective language we are not talking about God. Absolutely no light was shed on the subject of God or theology in that failed attempt at dialogue—except that there are, unfortunately, apparently, incommensurable ways of thinking about God and “God-talk” in contemporary Christian theology. And the problem for me was that I could sympathize with both. Cognitive dissonance to the max!

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

ADDENDUM

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

*John Caputo wrote an article that basically said that it is harder to prove ones atheology than it is that of faith. That the burden of proof for unbelief is so extensive that a true atheism essential is nonexistent - Towards a Radical Theology, Not a Radical Atheism: A Review of Modern Atheism, Atheology and Divine Inexistence:

"I think, and Watkin seems to agree, that there are no non-circular arguments against the existence of God, if by God we mean a being outside space and time. If that is what a radical atheism would mean, there is no such thing (243, n.3). What resources could we ever marshal to show what there is not in a world beyond space and time? If it is "difficult" enough to try to prove that something is there, it is even harder to prove there is not."

 

- R.E. Slater
 

 

 For Further Reference See Also:

 

 

Differences between Evolutionary Creationism

and Darwinian Scientific Naturalism

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/01/differences-between-evolutionary.html

 

 

 

 

 

Emergent Christianity and a Calvinistic Philosopher's Assertion

for Theism and Evolution (re Alvin Plantinga)

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/12/calvinistic-philosopher-asserts-theism.html

 

Adam Bird for The New York Times. The

philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whose new

book is called “Where the Conflict Really

Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism.”

 

Reviewing Thomas Oord's "Revisionary Postmodernism and the Christian Faith"

The endless Nautilus of Postmodernism

After reading Thomas Jay Oord's piece on revisionary postmodernism (written 2 years ago in March 2010) I thought to myself how amazingly helpful those insights would've been to my personal journey over the past 12 years if I had had some kind of knowledge and understanding back then of the different kinds of postmodernism being banter about and promoted. However, it wasn't postmodernism that was at issue, but the knuckleheads I was paying attention to and trying to discern by their insights and decisions they were making while demanding highhandedly the immediate relinquish of all previous doctrinal commitments without communal assent and accord as allowed within the normal forums of discussion and debate.

Quizzically, those armchair philosophers had it both right and wrong. Right, in that postmodernism is a real event beginning back during the dissettling days of the Vietnam War (cf. The Day America Died & the Birth of Postmodernism) when so many teenagers and young twenty-somethings were dying by the hundreds every day for years and years. One of these kids could've been myself except that by the time I was draftable the war was in its finally year. And for the fact that my draft number just managed to be a hair's breath out-of-reach of the cutoff point (not that I didn't seriously consider accepting the Air Force Academy's offer to be trained and to fly for them a year earlier).

Wrong, in that those same quasi-philosopher's never came forward to tell us exactly what flavor, or kind, of postmodernism they were espousing (largely because I suspect they didn't know themselves - though should have. Or in the least had been more humble about their ignorance as our specially annointed enlightened ones). And as they spouted-and-touted this-way-and-that about doctrinal issues it would've been a help to people such as myself if they had just told us what they were trying to do and accomplish instead of demanding all to follow without rhyme-or-reason. But, on the other hand, there was a very good chance that the problem lay with my boneheadedness and stubborn need for a fuller explanation than the short, cryptic ones I was receiving in public. I had grown comfortable in my Christian faith and had lost sight of the fact that every now-and-again it demands new ways and means that should not be confused with heresy. For surely wasn't I ever taught in the watchwords of reproof and rebuff? In either case, an impasse had been reached, and mostly it was mine when I look back upon those very quixotic days in perplexion and alarm, assurance and wisdom.

So I had the double (or even triple) task of trying to (i) discern how church doctrine would change one theme at a time (and I could see right away that it was going to be total and comprehensive - as you've come to discover through the reading of this blog these past 18 months). While at the same time trying to (ii) retain faithfulness to Scripture and not to a movement of some kind (whatever its name or label). What I didn't realize was that there was a third task hidden amongst the rest requiring even further distillment per (iii) the kind or type of postmodernism that was being espoused (for in reality there was more than one kind, though I knew it not, thinking postmodernism was all "one-and-the-same").

And so yes, it was all very confusing and oftentimes created strong emotional, or visceral, reactions within me.... Positively, I knew they were on to something. But negatively, it was a mish-mash of eclectic posturing and positioning. And it was being preached in a high-handed, in-your-face, suck-it-up, take-it-or-hit-the-road-Jack, smug-and-inflammatory attitude. Which I suspect was occurring because of the fierce public backlash being experienced. And after a while you just get numb to criticism and simply push on as best you can. If it required austerity, then fine. If emotional withdrawal, ok, so be it. But, by one-way-or-another, the Gospel of Jesus needed to be preached. Even though this was not something you would expect to find from the pastoral, shepherding staff and supporting boards of your newly elected church when all first seemed roses and daisies.

Of course, part of the dilemma was the fact that they were all so young. And so terrifically idealistic and prideful over the "secret" truths that they themselves knew that no one else could know unless allowed into the inner sanctums of their cliche'd societies. Added to this dilemma was the fact that age and generational discrimination was rampant so that the older men and women of the church were not allowed in unless they first signed off on the teachings of the church as the church was then envisioning them (they seemed to change by the year). Added to this was the feeling that many of us "older" Christians were suspect of being unable to adapt and change, preferring the older kinds of ingrained traditions that we grew up... consequently, a younger variety of naivete reigned. Finally, added to all of this was the combative invitation that welcomed all to the show - but sadly, not to any discussion, dissent, or veto of it. To do so was to be labelled an outcast within the fellowship with little hope of input except to invite estrangement due to our previously inculcated Evangelical short-sightedness (for such I was, and glad for the title at the time). Paradoxically, this also exactly described the church's inner-circle as well... they were shortsighted and naive themselves. Though they had parts of postmodernism and Emergent Christianity right, it was still all one big giant puzzle requiring years of study and theological posturing until the miscreant pieces could fall into place - both up and down. On paper it looked good. But in public it was being received badly. And in dissemination it was a battle.

Which is what I've been attempting to correct in Relevancy22 as I sift through the maze-like portions of this blog working out what had become of my past 35 years of church history and its more recent postmodern regeneration of itself to the ill-knowledge and tardy recognition of its faithful flocks and congregants. Nor was this task made any easier when turning to my more conservative brethren who had no clues as to what was going on... nor did they wish to. It was all too easy to leave behind while casting stones backwards in our direction and making very loud, vociferous, statements of self-righteous denial and condemning anathemas.

And so, there I was. Caught in between. Standing in the middle unable to turn right-or-left, and finding no knowledgeable help at hand to guide me. First, I didn't know the questions I needed to ask. Second, I didn't know who to listen too (apparently neither! LOL). And thirdly, it was all so new that what appeared to be cultic in fact turned into a rebirth of the Gospel quite unlike what was found during the past 2000 years of the church. And because no one could find "any instance of postmodernism previously occurring in church history" (pun intended) than it was assumed that this new Emergent movement had to be cultic - or at the least an aberrant sect of some doubtful kind. But never to vie in form and operation as a progenitor of mainline Christian orthodoxy! "Oh! How wrong I was!" What it was lacking was absorption into the public purview. A process that would require exactly the kinds of feelings and emotions I was going through over so many long years from dissent to amazement. My awakening and final sealing only awaited its much maligned reception upon the publication of an obscure book entitled Love Wins, by Rob Bell, which immediately relived my own previous spiritual journey publically. From that point forward I began to make my choices and thus, began writing of mine own evolving journey (for isn't an emergent faith exactly that? Intensely personal with intensely personal responses and repercussions?).

What few Emergent Christian books I could find at the time were not particularly enlightening - at least at first. Nor was the Internet in 1999-2006 at the stage of information delivery that it has now become (which is now my primary medium for help and content). On the plus side, the Emergents that I knew were all saying the right things but it just wasn't sitting right to its newest inductees (fellow knuckleheads like myself. LOL) unused to criticizing their beloved church through the positive language of faith renewal held under the guise of criticizing one's roots of Evangelicalism or Denominationalism. Though truly, I little realized how much the Evangelical church (and progressive denominational churches) had changed over its past 35 years. Espousing not the Gospel of Jesus, but some form of its own subcultural values and dogmas ("conservatism" or "progressive liberalism") though couched within that same Gospel of Jesus. And on the minus side, all non-Emergents had come to find themselves judging Christianity's newest fellowship with a severely critical eye which resulted in saying all kinds of things that were not true and unkind about the body of Christ. The rhetoric on both sides was both deafening and defeating. Peace was not in the air amongst God's children. And it hurt to watch it being played out publically.

Postmodernism has many varieties

But this newest segment of Christianity (described as Emergent Christianity) had staying power - evidencing the mighty work and protection of the Holy Spirit who somehow kept it moving forward - incredible as it seemed. If ever a peaceful sit-in, or demonstrable protest by good deeds, ever led so willfully and successfully, so it was with Emergence Christianity. Leading by prayer, grace, mercy and forgiveness to the forgotten, the neglected, the abandoned, found along the highways and byways of life's 2-laned, dirt roads. Jesus fellowships began to minister their way into their own rebirthed version of themselves. Showing little regard to the rigid observance of Evangelic or Denominational decorum as they marched forth on servant's knees to the unwashed masses of humanity. The spirit and temperament was awesome to behold.

And it is only now, years later (as this blog can testify to), that in hindsight the issues confronting the postmodern day church have become better understood and received. That a calm is beginning to settle into it through a latent repentant recognition of the larger-than-life issues that were being missed when squabbling about for our subcultural religious planks and platforms. Whether churches are Emergent or not, those churches and fellowship groups that are listening and praying are following in like suit of humility and obedience - even some of our Evangelic brethren, in one aspect or another, that were so loud at first in their protestations. Perhaps not to the degree one would wish. Nor at the quickening pace desired. But I suspect that in time (or by the roll calls of death and societal irrelevance) the fellowship of God's body will repent one-community-at-a-time until the Spirit of God has leavened the people of God with the gospel of Jesus just as yeast leavens itself throughout a loaf of bread. Or as a mustard seed grows to great height and breadth, starting out tiny at first and becoming a place where the many varieties of the birds of the air may settle into its branches. Or as a mountain of trouble may be removed by the apportionment of a loving and gracious faith. God will not be defeated. This is the mystery and the majesty of His glorious Name.

And so, when reading through Oord's March 2010 article (below) I quickly realized that nearly every one of the themes of revisionary postmodernism had in some way been heavy on my heart and soul. So much so that as bread requires kneading and pounding to form and rise, so too did I feel the same confluences under the Holy Spirit (at least I'm pretty sure I felt the "pounding" part!). Since the inception of this blog, I have unwittingly worked through as many of these themes as possible not realizing that what I was doing was fleshing out the much larger framework of "Revisionary Postmodernism" (well, admittedly I kinda did as we've explored postmodernism more than once here within this blog's postings. Just not revisionary postmodernism... until now). While at the same time we've investigated (amongst others) the juxtapositioned extremes of deconstructivist, liberal, or relativistic postmodernism. (It should also be mentioned that David Ray Griffin had coined the earlier term "Reconstructive Postmodernism." Which theme Thomas Jay Oord takes up in his "Revisionary Postmodernism" explorations).

For apparently, most of my real-life, experiential postmodernism seems to have  come under the requisite deconstructivist  kind (though never the relevatistic kind). One that I admitted but never liked. And largely chaffed under it. Not that I don't believe that every new system must have a deconstructive element within it to identify the why's and wherefore's of its separation from its previous contemporaries. Deconstruction is necessary for any ideology to grow and expand just as it is necessary in the believer's life when first becoming a Christian and examining our lives and finding ourselves wanting in the flesh and devoid of God's Spirit... separated as we were, from the will, and fellowship, of the living God. Whose redemption draws nigh to us through Jesus His Son, the very Incarnate Personage of the Triune Trinity. Savior. Redeemer. Immanuel. And King of Kings both now and forevermore.

That said, by nature I'm a reconstructivist that is willing to deconstruct where necessary, but not so as to linger overlong in abject unknowing, or in  over harsh criticism of God's faithful remnant and spell bound brotherhood. Likewise, I have always considered the apophatic tag forced on Emergent Christianity as unfair. Under revisionary postmodernism I find that I can be gladly rid of that label while keeping my Emergent Christianity healthily intact. And since philosophy isn't my bag, I've been very glad for the level-headedness shown by our perceptive process theologians who have done a yeoman's job standing in the vanguard for us. True, I may not exactly be a devotee of theirs, but they have convinced me enough to move towards a kind of benevolent process thought and away from the guarded stoicism found in classical theism. Towards something of a middling ground (or synthetic position) we've been describing as relational theism (but not of the panentheistic kind, though I more-or-less understand the usage of that appendage both rightly and wrongly as we've examined the quantum physics claims of creational inception).

So, please enjoy this article on postmodernism's features and warrants. Because I have found it to be a very enlightening declaration of just what kind of postmodernist we might strive towards that seems to fit - at least for myself - a good many of the theological platforms that we have been declaring here at Relevancy22. For me, postmodernism was never the issue. However, its type and portrayal was. Along with all the rhetoric that therein occurred. My journey has ended - I am glad to say. And a new one now begins. One that requires telling of my evolving (or emerging) journey hopefully to the benefit of many others as similarly confused as I was once myself.

And with that, I believe we'll be able to use these thoughts for some directional guidance and Christian level-headedness. Please enjoy. And please receive my sincere apologies for this overlong introduction. But when confronted by deeply significant, and foundational pieces of thought, I many times find it helpful to provide a little personality into the academic words less we miss their deep, foundational importance. Humbling as they are. Thank you again for following along. And to all those fellow knuckleheads out there be thankful for our God's all gracious, and loving patience, towards us. And for delivering us from our religious pride and zeal. A sad reality that continues even unto this day as it did in Jesus' day of ministry and reform. We are all in this together. And must never loose sight of the value of community couched within individual well being and sustenance. May God's peace and mercy be upon all His children and upon humanity in general this day. Amen.

R.E. Slater

December 7, 2012

Reclaiming the Past. Imagining a Future:

Revisionary Postmodernism

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/reclaiming_to_move_ahead_revisionary_postmodernism/#.UMJv_rc8enc.facebook

by Thomas Jay Oord

March 15, 2012

The final postmodern tradition of the four I identify as most prominent may prove

most helpful for Christians in our emerging world. It revisions reality by drawing

from a wide spectrum of resources.

The final postmodern tradition of the four I identify as most prominent may prove most helpful for Christians in our emerging world. It revisions reality by drawing from a wide spectrum of resources.

 

Growing a beautiful garden is an art. Exceptional gardeners draw from a wealth of wisdom to nurture their plants to survive and thrive. Some elements of garden growing are nonnegotiable: seeds, water, nutrients, sunlight. Other elements arise from tried and true methods that, while not necessary, have been proven time and again to produce beautiful gardens. And the best gardeners seek novel gardening insights and resources that enhance their horticultural husbandry. After all, even the art of gardening changes.

Similar to good gardeners, revisionary postmodernists identify the nonnegotiables of life, draw from past wisdom, and incorporate novel ideas as they propose a credible postmodern worldview.

Like other postmodern traditions, revisionary postmodernism overcomes or transcends features of modernism.

But revisionary postmodernism also criticizes other postmodern traditions.

The remainder of this essay sketches out some features of revisionary postmodernism.


Constructing a New Worldview -

Revisionary postmodernists accept the project of constructing a worldview adequate for our time. In this, they distinguish themselves from deconstructionists. Espousing some worldview or another is inescapable. Instead of fooling ourselves, say revisionists, we should propose a worldview that seems best to account for life in all its dimensions.

Revisionary postmodernists reject, however, the idea that we have a certain center or sure foundation upon which to build. Our worldviews will always be "on the way," partial, and in need of further revision. We must always be prepared to recast, generalize, and adapt a postmodern worldview to new experiences and information. Revisionary postmodernist seek to do so with humility. Know-it-alls need not apply.


Embracing those at the Margins -

Modernity failed to consider the experiences of those at the margins (e.g., women, ethnic minorities). It failed to account for animal experience. And it failed to consider the essential role of divine action or providence. These and other modern failures resulted in the loss of a holistic perspective on realit

The worldview revisionary postmodernists offer is intended to account for the voices of those at the margins and the mainstream. Revisionists seek to account for a variety of sensibilities, including religious, scientific, ecological, liberationist, economic, and aesthetic.

They seek a story big enough and adequate enough to include everyone. This story appreciates and promotes diversity and difference.

The “other” is not reduced to the self. Discerning tolerance is a moral imperative, and wisdom with regard to difference is crucial.


The Limits of Language -

Revisionary postmodernists share to a large degree the deconstructionist’s suspicion of language. Language is slippery, even if often helpful and necessary.

Revisionary postmodernists argue, however, that language is not the only or even the most important lens on reality. Rather, experience is prior to and more basic than language. In fact, most experience is nonlinguistic.


Experiential Nonnegotiables -

When constructing a worldview, we should privilege those beliefs that we inevitably presuppose in our experience. These beliefs are the bottom layer of experience we all share. These beliefs include the idea that some things are better than others, the notion that we are free to some degree, the notion that an external world exists beyond us, the idea that some events are caused by others, etc. We inevitably presuppose various beliefs in our day-to-day living. I call these beliefs “experiential nonnegotiables.”

Revisionary postmodernist, David Ray Griffin, calls these inevitable beliefs, “hard-core commonsense notions.” We cannot help presupposing these notions in the way we live our lives, he says. We are guilty of self-contradiction if we adopt a theory or worldview that denies them. Any scientific, philosophical, or theological theory is irrational to the extent that it contradicts whatever notions we inevitably presuppose in practice.[1] Common sense counts.


Overcoming Relativism -

I noted in earlier blog posts that some postmodern traditions result in radical relativism – either individual or communal. Deconstructive postmodernism is most prone to extreme relativism. Some postmodern traditions reject any basis for believing that one worldview corresponds to all of reality better than others do.

The experiential nonnegotiables of revisionary postmodernism, however, allow one to overcome radical relativism. These notions are features of existence we all share. In affirming this, revisionary postmodernism continues the premodern and modern conviction that at least some universal standards exist.


Ways of Knowing -

Revisionary postmodernists join feminists in arguing that knowledge is not confined to logic or facts obtained through our five senses. It affirms the view of Michael Polanyi that personal knowledge must play a role in our attempts to make sense of the world.

Knowledge in revisionary postmodernism typically resides between certainty about absolutes and the disarray of relativism. Catherine Keller suggests that the middle ground between absolute and relative is the postmodern virtue of being resolute.


Ecology and Purpose -

Revisionary postmodernists agree with ecological postmodernists that living things are more than mindless machines. Creaturely freedom, purpose, and intentionality are real. All creatures possess intrinsic value.

Many revisionary postmodernists also adopt the theory of theistic evolution, because it affirms a necessary place both God and evolution in an adequate explanation of creation. One can affirm both the main contours of contemporary science and the belief that God originally and continually creates.


Centrality of Community –

Revisionary postmodernists agree with narrative postmodernists that creatures are not isolated individuals. Community is essential. An adequate postmodern worldview speculates that all creatures -- both human and nonhuman -- are interrelated. We live in a relational world, and who we are is largely determined by our relations with others. With the Apostle Paul, revisionists argue that we are members of one body.

We must affirm a necessary role both for the individual and community, argue revisionists. Humans might best be called “community-created-individuals” or “individuals-in-community.” Bono of U2 says it well: “We’re one, but we’re not the same.”

Revisionary postmodernists agree with the conclusion Bono draws from this insight: “We’ve got to carry each other.” We are designed for community, and our individual well-being is caught up in - and largely dependent upon - the well-being of the whole.


Progress is Possible but not Inevitable -

Modernists celebrated what they thought would be the triumphant march of science to make the world a better place. They often equated advances in technology with overall progress in making the world better. Full-speed-ahead is always right, say modernists.

Modern “progress” has caused so much unnecessary destruction, however. E. E. Cummings called progress a “comfortable disease.” It’s a disease wreaking havoc on humans, nonhumans, and all of planet earth.

Like other postmodern traditions, revisionary postmodernism denies that progress is inevitable or that technology always results in good.

Revisionists believe that genuine progress is possible, however. We are not doomed to the same old self-destructive rut. Transformation can occur.

Revisionary postmodernists join narrative postmodernists by looking to ancient resources for wisdom about how best to proceed into the future.

But they are also open to emergent insights that might help facilitate the experience of abundant life. John Wesley’s optimism of grace fits the revisionary mindset: “the best is yet to be.”

Progress toward a better world is possible by divine grace and proper creaturely responses.


God –

An important plank in revisionary postmodernism is its doctrine of God. Revisionary postmodernists reject the modern tendency to think God could be completely comprehended. We see through a glass darkly.

But it also rejects absolute negative theology and the utter silence of apophatic theology. We know in part.

Revisionists are in many ways pre-modern in their beliefs, because they affirm that God is actual, active, and interacting in the world. God really lives and truly loves.

Revisionary postmodernists often call God “relational” to account for the give-and-receive relationships God enjoys with others. The invisible Spirit works in all creation, and we have direct access to this Spirit. Our non-sensory interaction with God and sensory inferences from nature provide awareness of right and wrong, true and false, beautiful and ugly. For in God we live and move and have our being.

Many revisionary postmodernists look to doctrines of the Trinity to ground their emphasis upon divine relatedness.

Others focus upon the relational God who by nature relates with all creation. God is not unmoved.

Revisionary postmodernists argue that beliefs about God should not be relegated to their own domain while beliefs about the world function without reference to God. We cannot neatly separate the secular and the sacred. A revisionary postmodern worldview reserves an essential place for both creatures and the Creator.

The interaction of God and creation is central to understanding reality. Some call this view “panentheism.” Others call it “participation” or “cooperation.” I like the word “theocosmocentrism.”


Conclusion

We live in a new world. Postmodernism reminds us of that. Revisionary postmodernism promotes the task of constructing a new worldview to account for truths in the widest range of experience. It places God and creation front and center.

The philosopher-poet-environmentalist, Wendell Berry, warns that in this new world...

“we have reached a point at which we must either consciously desire and choose and determine the future of the earth or submit to such an involvement in our destructiveness that the earth, and ourselves with it, must certainly be destroyed.”[2]

Berry’s prophetic words beckon us to reckon with our past, our present, and our possible future.

Many revisionary postmodernists agree with Berry. Some dare to hope that a better way of thinking and acting is now possible. But this better way must involve being, acting, and thinking differently.

---

[1] David Ray Griffin, Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001).

[2] Wendell Berry, “The Loss of the Future,” in The Long-Legged House (New York: Harcourt, 1969), 46.

Wisdom, Choices and Temptations

 

 

 

Here is Wisdom...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecology and Doctrine - How One May Affect the Other

The Persistency of Good Doctrine That Is Relevant

Over the past 18 months I have attempted to offer some discussion to the topic of God's Sovereignty as versus the all-too-popular view that God is always in control of everything - from the good to the bad. Or, as a variant to that claim, that God is just responsible for the good stuff and that the bad stuff goes either to our credit, the devil, or "sin" in general. Relational Theism makes the discerning observation that not all things are of God. Nor is God always in control. But rather He may seem to be both Strong or Weak (oft-times at the same time) without either view affecting His Sovereign Rule that allows for creational indeterminacy and sentient free will. As such, this kind of theological view will definitely affect our view of God, ourselves, sin and creation, to mention a few.

What Hess brings out here in his Catholic article on ecology below are the well-thought-out consequences of carrying older theologies written for very different times and cultures than our own postmodern climates and cultures. Which is yet one more reason that a blog essay like Relevancy22 is necessary to the public purview when considering the many fundamental (and I think, radical) changes occurring within the body of the church and its ministries today.

The Bible is meant to be relevant - not dated. And so is the church which we are to assist by becoming relevant ourselves as Jesus followers by bringing debate and reform to its very door steps so that the church does not rest upon its earlier-conceived missions, even from a generation ago. Older views may be the cherished, classic traditions of the church, but they aren't necessarily the most warranted unless they can be stretched a bit, or even shelved completely, dependent upon the events and eras each society is experiencing. The trick is to step back from ourselves and learn to proclaim a Bible and a God that can endure the yesterday's and tomorrows of Jesus' Gospel. What once was believed (or worked) may not be the best way to express the love of God and His current handiwork of regeneration, reform, renewal, redemption and resurrection. For so He ever does.

Thus, what I have attempted here at Relevancy22 is to reletivise static church dogma in a way that could be more pertinent as living doctrine for tomorrow's generation(s) while at the same time speaking extemporaneously to our contemporary environment based upon a biblically-rooted theology that is flexible and generous. Hess' article is a good example of how we should be broader-minded and more adept at thinking through the impact of our static definitions, dogmas, and church statements that may not necessarily be as relevant for us today as they once were generations earlier (and this goes for our narrow-minded press and media pundits as well!)

Recalling older theologians and commentaries is all wonderful and good, but we do our ministries and friends a great disservice when we allow the past to determine our future responses without adding a degree or two of prayerful discernment and theologic forward-mindedness. Newer doctrine does not necessarily mean newer heresies. That is the watchword of the slothful theologian unwilling to become versified in his generation's ways and means, toils and turmoils. It also is the watchword of the overly skeptical pulpit and well-meaning congregants who are unperceptive to the political, economic and social changes occurring around them as regarding the intent and meaning of a good, robust, Spirit-filled, theology.

Nor are our resident theologians and academicians without their flaws given the nature and force of resistant change found within the bastions of our timeless church institutions and traditions. For how many times have we read of a professor or pastor losing their job because they were willing to think outside of the box and address a specific need of society or ministry? If the discipline of science has taught us anything, it has shown us the regularly recurring necessity to abandon non-scientific views and ideologies for more expressive, adaptable, and truer thoughts in any given area. And so must we, pertaining to our ideas of a static theology, an irrelevant God, and an unmeaningful Bible. For so we get when we close God's Word and refuse an open theology rich and beautiful to the needs of our world, and ourselves, today.

“Faith is not certainty. It is the courage to live with uncertainty.”

- Rabbi Johnathan Sacks, The Great Partnership (p.97)

We should not be stingy when regarding the hand of God and His heart. Our reluctance to change is most often our greatest sin. Nor should we be misers of the Gospel of Jesus which will have its own iconoclastic* affects both now and in eternity lest we better behave our temperaments, arguments and ecclesiastical statements of "Fire, Fire!" When, in effect, it is the very hand and will of God Himself that we are refusing to allow or assist. Epistemic humility goes a long way towards the grasping the benevolence of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Haughty, prideful spirits produce only darkness and gracelessness.

Be willing to change. Be willing to doubt yourself. Be willing to re-consider what you were once taught and how that might be better upgraded (or updated) to today's future generations. If not, God will find better spokesmen and women for His Son's Gospel of grace and mercy, wisdom and truth. But once you do, you'll be glad that you did. And so well your friends, congregants, and pupils.

R.E. Slater

December 6, 2012

*Please refer to the sidebar An Open Faith for additional articles of an open theology, an open Bible, and an open faith.

*Related doctrinal thoughts herein may be discovered in the sidebars labelled under "Sovereignty, God, Evolution, Sin, Man, and Relational, Theism," for starters. A word or phrase look-up may also be undertaken within the body of this blog's opening sidebars near the top right hand side alongside the box "search".

*i·con·o·clas·tic [adjective]
1. attacking or ignoring cherished beliefs and long-held traditions, etc., as being based on error, superstition, or lack of creativity: an iconoclastic architect whose buildings are like monumental sculptures.
2. breaking or destroying images, especially those set up for religious veneration.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Religion and the Reality of Climate Change

Peter M.J. Hess, Ph.D.

Director of Outreach to Religious Communities, National Center for Science Education

December 5, 2012

Matthias Claudius penned some memorable lines in German two centuries ago that became in translation England's most popular harvest festival hymn:

We plough the fields, and scatter
the good seed on the land,
but it is fed and watered
by God's almighty hand;
he sends the snow in winter,
the warmth to swell the grain,
the breezes and the sunshine
and soft refreshing rain.

In the holiday season, many of us reflect on what it is for which we are thankful. Naturally, we give thanks when things are going well, and even in a disaster we might be grateful that the catastrophe was not worse or that people stepped forward to render assistance. Claudius's poem presupposes a general climatic stability that for several centuries has been conducive to thankful worship.

But how does this optimistic hymn play in the era of radical climate change? How will it sound in the future, when each decade may bring yet more frequent and extreme climate events? What is the providential reading of "God's almighty hand" in a prolonged and life-threatening drought, or in the agrarian disaster of a dust bowl? When we are battered by a Hurricane Sandy or Katrina, how do we understand the majestic line about God in the Navy hymn, "Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep its own appointed limits keep"?

Indeed, what role do religion and theology play in the accelerating conversation about climate change? This has been a banner year for extreme weather events -- from severe drought in the American Midwest to the wildfire siege in Colorado to the "Frankenstorm" of Hurricane Sandy fueled by a warming Atlantic Ocean -- which have helped the reality of climate change to register on the consciousness of most people.

But global climate change is more far-reaching in its effects than a season of storms. Climate change threatens to put billions of people at risk of devastation wrought by a climate changing too rapidly for coherent and effective response. In numerous religious traditions and the denominations under their umbrellas, people have come to understand the scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change may do irreparable harm to the biosphere upon which our modern civilization depends.

An example of involvement driven by religious conviction is Young Evangelicals for Climate Action. YECA spokesperson Ben Lowe says that:

In seeking to live as Christ's disciples, we have come to see the climate crisis not only as a pressing challenge to justice and freedom, but also as a profound threat to "the least of these" whom Jesus identifies with himself in Matthew 25. The early effects of climate change are already impacting many of our neighbors, both in the U.S. and around the world, and our time to act is running short.

YECA strongly believes that God is calling people of the millennial generation not to sit back passively, but to take action toward overcoming the climate crisis. "For us, this means living as good stewards of God's creation, advocating on behalf of the poor and marginalized, supporting our faith leaders when they stand up for climate action, holding our political leaders accountable for responsible climate policies, and mobilizing our generation and the larger church community to join in."

There are parallel currents within the Roman Catholic Church, which has a long-standing involvement with environmental matters. In 2006, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment jointly launched the Catholic Climate Covenant. This is championed by the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change, part of the USCCB's Environmental Justice Program. The coalition has developed the five-element St. Francis pledge, named for the medieval saint famous for his work with the poor and his kindness to animals. Those taking the pledge undertake to:

• PRAY and reflect on the duty to care for God's Creation and protect the poor and vulnerable.
• LEARN about and educate others on the causes and moral dimensions of climate change.
• ASSESS how we -- as individuals and in our families, parishes and other affiliations -- contribute to climate change by our own energy use, consumption, waste, etc.
• ACT to change our choices and behaviors to reduce the ways we contribute to climate change.
• ADVOCATE for Catholic principles and priorities in climate change discussions and decisions, especially as they impact those who are poor and vulnerable.

Since its debut on Earth Day 2009, thousands of individuals and organizations have taken the pledge. The website of the Franciscan Action Network offers suggestions and resources for incorporating climate change awareness into church worship by way of prayers, homiletical themes and liturgical music.

Another exciting project is the Jewish Climate Initiative. Like many social action projects in Judaism, it was established for tikkun olam ("repairing the world"), which is especially appropriate for a group working on climate change issues. The rationale for JCI is deeply rooted in texts from the Torah and midrash (the body of rabbinic commentary and interpretation):

We are God's caretakers for the earth. Our job is to cultivate the natural world and enhance its capacity to support life. God created Adam and placed him in the Garden of Eden "to work it and conserve it." (Genesis 2:15.) A famous midrash says: When God created Adam, God led him around all of the trees in the Garden of Eden. God told him, 'See how beautiful and praiseworthy are all of my works. Everything I have created has been created for your sake. Think of this and do not corrupt the world; for if you corrupt it, there will be no one to set it right after you.' (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13.) Destroying the conditions for much life on earth violates this duty of stewardship.

Not all religious groups are as active in promoting understanding of and action in response to climate change; indeed, some are actively denying climate change and resisting efforts to cope with it. But organizations such as YECA, the Catholic Climate Covenant and JCI have realized that religious groups have both an opportunity and an obligation to reinvigorate our society's conversation about climate change and hold policymakers' feet to the fire.

Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"

Engaging the World - What Is Your Discipleship Model?

A New Kind of Discipleship

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/12/05/a-new-kind-of-discipleship/

 

Scot McKnight

December 5, 2012

Comments

 

In his new book, A Thicker Jesus: Incarnational Discipleship in a Secular Age, Fuller seminary’s Christian ethicist, Glen Stassen, proposes a new kind of discipleship — a discipleship fit for a secular age and for a public faith. He calls this model “incarnational discipleship.” Framing an ethic, or discipleship, for the public sector will lead me to questions about the church as our politic, but we need to hear Glen out.

 

What model do you use when you think of how the Christian engages the State? In other words, what is your politic?

 

• The Constantinian takeover?
 
• Luther’s two-realms?
 
• The Reformed theory of influence through spheres of sovereignty?

• The Anabaptist ecclesial politic?
 
• Where does Stassen fit?

 

Stassen wants a “thicker” Jesus — not just a vague ideal or a principle, nor an ideal so high no one could achieve it, nor one restricted to “internal church relations” [OK, Glen, now we've made Jesus a public square Jesus] … the thicker Jesus is one that gives concrete and specific guidance and one that rejects a two-realms dualism and one that summons us from the ideologies of our day....

 

 

[A recent example of intergrating faith with society may be reviewed in my most recent

article here - Kurt Vonnegut and the Sacred Solidarity of God with Humanity. - R.E. Slater]

 

 

...So [Stassen] proposes [the idea of an] “incarnational discipleship,” and there are three dimensions defining it:

 

1. A holistic sovereignty of God and the Lordship of Christ through all of life.

 

2. A thicker Jesus who is God incarnate, historically embodied, and realistic.

 

3. A Holy Spirit who is independent from all powers and authorities, calling us to repent from ideological entanglements.

 

Stassen finds embodiments of this thicker Jesus incarnational discipleship in what can only be called the progressive Christian approach to the relationship of Christ and culture (or world). His major models are The Barmen Declaration, Bonhoeffer’s early resistance during his writing of the Sermon on the Mount, André Trocmé, the righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust, Martin Luther King Jr and Clarence Jordan, the Revolution of the Candles, and Dorothy Day and Muriel Lester.

 

He stews this new kind of discipleship in the work of Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, and applies this thicker Jesus/incarnational discipleship model to issues like democracy, science, individualism, sin, the cross, love and war.

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

AMAZON REVIEW

 

 

Book Description

Release Date: October 25, 2012

 

Why have some Christians, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King Jr., been able to speak truth to power at great personal cost, while others readily capitulate to injustice? In this magnum opus, Christian ethicist Glen Stassen argues that such robust Christianity stems from believing in a "thicker" Jesus, who is Lord over the whole of life and not just one compartment of it. Belief in this thicker Jesus results in "incarnational discipleship" and can help Christians deal with the challenges of what Charles Taylor has identified as a secular age. Stassen elegantly weaves the characteristics of incarnational discipleship as correctives to secularism.

 

About the Author

 

Glen H. Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. His book Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, with David Gushee, received Christianity Today's Award for Best Book of 2004 in Theology or Ethics. He is also the author of Living the Sermon on the Mount, Just Peacemaking, and other books.

 

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 out of 5 stars

An outstanding and innovative exposition of the ethics of Jesus

November 22, 2012

By John Mustol

 

Today American evangelical churches are in serious moral difficulty. We are in dire need of spiritual and ethical repentance and renewal. In this book, Dr. Glen Stassen, the Louis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, calls Christians to this needed repentance and renewal through his ethics of incarnational discipleship within the context of our modern secular age.

 

A "thick Jesus" means that Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior was a historically situated, flesh-and-blood person who walked the dusty roads of Palestine. A Jew thoroughly immersed in the Hebraic tradition, especially that of the prophet Isaiah. He lived, taught, and worked within the historical, physical, social, spiritual, and political, realities of his time and place. In this [way] Jesus revealed God's character and provided norms for guiding our lives today. Like Jesus, our ethics must be historical, social, spiritual, and political. They must be embedded in the "thick" realities, struggles, and particularities of earthly life, not in the "thin" conceptualities of platonic idealism or sectarian perfectionism. Stassen wants followers of Jesus to "enter into" the world and be deeply (thickly) engaged in all its flawed messiness in this "age of interaction."

 

Toward this end, Stassen offers his Trinitarian paradigm of incarnational discipleship:

 

(1) the holistic sovereignty of God and Lordship of Christ,

 

(2) God revealed thickly in [the] historical [personage of] Jesus Christ, and

 

(3) the Holy Spirit, independent of all powers and authorities, reminding us of Jesus and calling us to repentance from ideological entanglements (p. 17).

 

Grasping the narrative character of human cognition, Stassen emphasizes "historical drama" in Jesus and in our living out of the Christian life. He believes that the true test for the validity of an ethic is its historical fruit... how it performs in the "crucible" of history. In this regard, the great German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer plays a prominent role. Stassen is a leading Bonhoeffer scholar.

 

Seeking an integrative and holistic approach to ethics and life, Stassen draws on diverse sources: Nancey Murphy's conception of scientific research programs (based on the philosophy of Imre Lakatos), Charles Taylor's analysis of modern individualism and secularism, his own background in scientific procedures and methods, the existentialist novels of Albert Camus, as well as careful analysis of biblical texts. Drawing on Bonhoeffer, Stassen offers an intriguing "incarnational" theory of the cross (atonement).

 

Finally, Stassen reiterates his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, giving it a central place in his ethics. For him, the Sermon is not idealistic perfectionism but concrete realism. He presents his "fourteen triads" for interpreting the Sermon and summarizes his ten "transforming initiatives" for just peacemaking, which is one of Stassen's central concerns as a Christian living in today's conflicted world. Stassen is on a mission to see Christians live out their faith in a morally credible way in the real world. He wants to see Christian churches pass the moral test of history. His passion for this is evident in the book.

 

Stassen is a man of remarkable character and vision, extremely knowledgeable, widely read, a brilliant and accomplished scholar and thinker. Yet he remains a profoundly personable and humble man. And he puts feet on his faith. He is not content to stay in his office writing books or hobnobbing with his fellow professors. At age 76, he is an activist involved in the rough and tumble problems of the world such as peacemaking in the Middle East. In the book he tells of his extensive work in the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

 

The book is dense in places, and Stassen's sense of urgency sometimes leads him to try to put too much meaning into too few words. Also, if you are not familiar with some concepts, such as Nancey Murphy's theory of scientific validation, you may find parts of the book a little hard to understand. It also would have been nice if Stassen had placed Jesus and ourselves more realistically in the ecological contexts in which all earthly life is located. But, overall it is an excellent and easy read. Stassen's message comes through loud and clear.

 

All Christians (and a lot of non-Christians) ought to read this book. And it is, or ought to be, required reading for all students and scholars in Christian ethics. When all is said and done, Stassen wants only one thing - that all of us who name Jesus as Lord follow him realistically, incarnationally and in so doing bring glory to God. As his final sentence asks: "Will you join me in the apostolic witness to a thicker Jesus-in the tradition of incarnational discipleship?" (p. 221).