Stimulus Vol 17 Issue 4 November 2009 |
Table of ContentsIt might be emerging, but is it church? Back to the future: why ancient ways of praying Scripture can enrich preaching Evolution and evil Should the scientist be a provisional atheist, or is methodological naturalism a satisfactory framework for the conduct of science and, especially, the science of life? The institutes of an evolutionary confession of faith: But is Nietzsche wrong? “Show me the money!” Part 2 Book review
|
|
November 2009 |
EditorialEstablished Centre
I know we are all getting heartily sick of Darwin, but he will not go away. Neither can we make some minor modification to our theology (e.g. the day age theory) and go on as though nothing had happened. The evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming and we must be honest about what it exposes regarding our assumptions about the Scriptures. Our thinking about the Genesis story owes more to Augustine and Milton than it does to the Bible itself. As we read the first three chapters we often imagine a back story where the whole earth is perfect, there is no death, no suffering, no carnivores, no viruses, no bacteria. Sin creates a spectacular fall where all is changed to what we see now. Unfortunately, the text does not support this. The man and woman are in a garden that is part of the world, not the whole world, and is in fact identifiable by the rivers as being in our world. There is a snake in the garden – where did he come from? If one reads wider, one finds out that God created animals in a state that looks very carnivorous (see Isaiah 39). The Old Testament does not shy away from saying that God created what was “very good” and yet was “red in tooth and claw”. Time to reread the text I think. And whether we like it or not, we have Darwin to thank for making us do the reread. As we know, Darwin’s followers did not stop at biological evolution and an evolutionary fundamentalism has grown up that attempts to explain all of life. Duncan Roper examines this evolutionary orthodoxy through the eyes of one of its proponents, Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog. Duncan develops the implied four institutes of an evolutionary confession of faith (a nice play on the other anniversary this year). Neil Broom gives us an alternative view of the evolutionary mechanisms. It is not all about the genome – there’s lots of other stuff going on, as is increasingly acknowledged among the evolutionary orthodox. Nicola Hoggard Creegan takes us to the core of the evolutionary theology issue as she considers evil and fallenness. Many of the Christian treatments of evolution written by scientists skirt around this issue, much as those written by theologians often do not honestly grapple with the science. What happened at the fall? Did God create suffering? If evolution is all about competition, what does this mean for God’s good creation? Where is the creator now in the creation? Geoff New wants us to read the Scriptures and in his article, Lectio Divina rides again. Geoff wants us to retain intellectual integrity as we grapple with the text, but avoiding the lament of “The exegetes have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” Imagination, Lectio Divina, and Ignatius contemplation will help us encounter Mystery and together face this world with its many valleys of dry bones. Kevin Ward wonders whether what is “emerging” is actually church. Like Geoff, he goes back to the future for inspiration, using the Nicene Creed to see whether what is emerging is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. As followers of Jesus we continue in this life as pilgrims. How ever we may understand the details of the grand narrative, whether we are “emerging” or not, we know that whereas our first parents were in a garden, one day we will be in a city. While there was a snake in the garden and death must have been part of the wider ecology, there will be no suffering in the future city. Humility continues to be called for as we learn from the works of the creator and as we seek to interpret and apply together the Scriptures. Biologists are often far more certain and dogmatic about their core theory than for example physicists, philosophers, or mathematicians (compare the writings of Richard Dawkins with Roger Penrose or John Leslie). Biologists are cushioned in the apparent comfortable certainty of chemistry and physics. Those who work in those fields and push up against the uncertainty of the big questions and the unnerving fine tuning of the universe are less dogmatic. There are lessons there for us. May God preserve us too from fundamentalism – taking part of the truth and treating it as the whole truth.
David Cashmore for the editorial committee
|
|
Emerging church? |
|
“...to be part of the gospel imperative to transform minds and put faith in God into practice.” |
|
STIMULUS THE NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT AND PRACTICE |