Not to be confused with the freedom of humanity.
So instead of blaming the evil and suffering that we humans continue to both live with and complain about, seeking answers here and there, Why not blame the freedom of creation—the freedom that Almighty God bestowed on his natural creation?
So the next time a tsunamai claims over 200, 000 and a hurricane takes lives and displaces thousands, Why not point the finger at Creation and its Freedom?
But the brilliant William Dembski sees the irony:
How can the freedom of creation, which results from a freely acting God who freely bestows freedom on creation, force us to become sinners and force the world to be a dangerous place full of natural evil? Shouldn’t the freedom of creation rather give us freedom not to sin? And shouldn’t it be possible for God to create a world whose freedom is not destructive and does not entail evil? (The End of Christianity: Finding A Good God In An Evil World, p. 30, emphasis mine)
According to Dembski, it is becoming “a consistent pattern in contemporary theology” to blame the evil and suffering in our world “to the freedom of creation” (Ibid) rather than to the Fall of humanity.
Interesting idea. I suppose if humans have free will, then we can reasonably allow that at least higher animals also do – including, in the case of carnivores, to attack and kill others. That would deal with the “nature red in tooth and claw” type of objection to theism. But it is hard to see how inanimate objects like parts of the earth could have the freedom to decide e.g. to quake and cause a tsunami. Perhaps that freedom lies within quantum uncertainties which, arguably, are not entirely controlled by God (even if he foresees all the details). The danger with this line of thinking is that we get into a kind of pantheism or animism of seeing all of nature as spiritual. I look forward to a comment thread on this one!
The danger with this line of thinking is that we get into a kind of pantheism or animism of seeing all of nature as spiritual.
Peter,it’s Dembski’s objection as well.
TC:
Does he give any examples of the scholars/writers that he has in mind?
Justin,
He does engage the likes of John Polkinghorne, Boyd, Lewis, Jurgen Moltmann.
My vicar starts a sabattical after Christmas. His topic for study is around the theology nature and effects of the fall; which looks as if it will take him into these questions. He was inspired to do this after reading Alexander’s book “Creation and Evolution, do we Have to Choose?”. I will await the results with interest though I will have to wait until after Easter!
Meanwhile I have read some of John Polkinghorne among others on these topics. A Theistic Evolutionary apporach argues ( as I understand it) that God created a world which is capable and largely allowed to develop itself in a “random evolutionary ” way. Perhaps Peter’s comment expresses something of this? So phyisical death at least predates the fall. Of course there are gaps and questions in this. How does the arrival of homo divinus – man in the image of God into which He breathed his spirit – fit into this scheme? It also makes the death resulting from the fall a spiritual death, not also physical.
But then a short timescale creationist approach is not without questions. Our selfishness clearly destroys ecosystems, shares resources not according to need, can cause climate change etc etc. But what is the dynamic by which man’s disobediance impacts on the tectonic structures of the earth.
A lot of questions (sounds like my ruminations on Tom Wright and justification). I too look forward to the ensuing debate.
Colin, I wasn’t explicitly expressing the thought of my former professor (of applied mathematics!) John Polkinghorne. But on this issue my view would be rather similar to his. Perhaps I took something philosophical from his very technical lectures on cosmology.
Peter
Fancy that! I guess that was before he turned his collar round. I do find most of what I have read from his pen coherent and logical – though sometimes too technical for one whose science education stopped with a poor A level and that more than 35 years ago!
As you may deduce I do not find either young earth creationism or Theistic Evolution totally satisfying.
Colin,
Dembski takes an approach that I’ve never read before: while natural evil predates the Fall, the Fall is retroactive – human sin is to be blamed.
Looks like your vicar is onto something.
But what is the dynamic by which man’s disobediance impacts on the tectonic structures of the earth.
Dembski argues that natural evil is to highlight the “gravity of sin” against creator God.
TC,
I have a hard time with the view of evil as flowing from the freedom of creation (especially inanimate creation), in light of Romans 8:20-21:
For the creation was subjected to futility —not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it —in the hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God’s children. (HCSB)
These verses seem to view creation as a passive recipient of futility, not its source. Furthermore, the futility seems to be, in some sense, God’s ACTIVE doing (“because of Him who subjected it”). And finally, the ultimate freedom of creation is connected intimately with the freedom of God’s children – which suggests to me that in some way, creation’s bondage also had something to do with the bondage of God’s children to sin and corruption.
Now, whether this subjection of creation to futility was temporally subsequent to the Fall is not specified by the passage. It may be (as Dembski suggests) that man’s sin had backward-reaching effects of the creation.
And finally, the ultimate freedom of creation is connected intimately with the freedom of God’s children – which suggests to me that in some way, creation’s bondage also had something to do with the bondage of God’s children to sin and corruption.
Tim,
The very thing Dembski argues.
Ah, the retroactive effects of the fall on natural creation is quite intriguing.
TC-
In the so-called P creation story, the original state of creation is “chaos” and the creative activity of God is to bring life-giving order to it. And in the “Yahwist” creation story the serpent represents this feature of “chaos” and humanity’s task is to be YHWH’s viceroy and help bring the potentiality of creation to fruition.
The judgment of Flood in essence was to let the Earth go back to its “chaotic” state. Thus, there is a real truth to this assertion. The problem I fear is that, for the most part,Protestant theology has no real sacramental theology of creation. God is “Other” in such a way that God works from without in relating to and effecting creation–human and non-human. When this is the case the only way to see this as a type of pantheism. Reflect upon Psalm 104: 25-30 which I read for Vespers every evening. YHWH has bestowed life upon all things and it shares the distortions and falleness of apex of creation, humankind, and it is to be redeemed in Christ also.
Scott,
Even Lewis takes a similar view to the matter of “chaos” and Satan as the culprit for the negative effects on creation. But the retroactive effects of the Cross would mean little to such a view.
A type of pantheism or a type of pan-anthropology, in regared to distortions and fallenness?
I do like Walton’s take on the creation-narrative (everyting leading up to the Inauguration of YHWH’s rest).