A Conclusion and a Prelude
In the four-part discussion below, I attempted to find a place where evolution might at least partially answer a theological question. We found that in the serious (and seriously under-discussed) problem of natural evil and suffering that we find in creation, especially those aspects of it which seem to have nothing to do with human responsibility. We saw that the Bible seems to teach that the fact that the world is not as it should be does not just apply to humans, but to the whole of creation. On the Biblical assumption that God is the only Creator, we found ourselves in need of an explanation for how nature could have strayed so far from God's original design for it - so far, in fact, that the very forms of many organisms actually are designed to inflict violent suffering on other creatures of God. The only possible explanation, we suggested, is that there is some mechanism by which the forms of creatures change over time, a mechanism that can be influenced by nefarious cosmic influences to push creation toward the design for suffering that is so easy to observe. Evolution is this mechanism; it is thus a necessary part of the explanation for natural evil and suffering. In at least this one area, theology needs evolution.
But I don't want to stop this discussion here. Having found a theological door that evolution seems to unlock, we now have a foundation for a broader theological discussion of evolution. As Paul says in Romans 1:20, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...." Given that evolution is a part of God's creation, we can (and should) ask how evolution reflects God's 'invisible qualities - eternal power and divine nature.' That is, what does evolution tell us about who God is?
Sounds like a good starting point for another series of posts.
posted by Lame and Blind @ 8:32 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
I'm having trouble fitting the central thesis of what you want to propose as the origin of natural evil, that is, intelligent, evil being working to pervert God's creation for a very long time, inside my salvation history narrative.
If one accepts this idea as an origin of natural evil, if asked the question, when was God's good creation, well, very good, then the goodness of creation gets pushed back into a time predating organisms of any complexity, perhaps predating life at all. One is left having a hard time calling Genesis 1 true even in the mythical sense.
But I could swallow this and reconstruct the beginning of salvation-history with human beings, beings made as God's image, God's delegated world-rulers, God's initial salvation-plan to bring his rule to an already-fallen world. Instead, by the imitation of the fallen world, they become themselves in need of salvation; indeed, by bringing their God-given faculties to bear on the practice of evil, they become more evil than the world, and begin to desolate it.
I could go here, and the metaphor of Christ as second Adam gains new strength here, but if I do, I immediately run into a problem in the work of salvation. It is foundational that the work of the cross is necessary. The suffering and death of Christ would be surpassingly more scandalous than it already is, if there were some other way. Jesus, king by nature, must also become king by right by defeating Satan. Satan, the world-ruler who holds the power of death, forfeits that right by exercising it over the one without sin, over whom he had no claim.
Yet if God gives Adam world-rulership, when Satan seems to have been already exercising it for some time (though Adam through sin forfeits it again), there is an arbitrariness about it that comes close to mocking Christ's salvation-labor. If God has already once arbitrarily given world-rulership to man, why must man perfected suffer death to attain it? The cross seems no longer quite so necessary, if the precedent for an arbitrary revolution in the system of the world has been already set.
Post a Comment
<< Home