Re: RFEP and the Heart of Christianity

Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 18:43:19 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: royalty"

    In a message dated 9/19/2003 2:25:58 PM Mountain Standard Time, writes:

    [big snip]

    > I'm not arguing "because capable and efficient natural causes, Christ"
    > but (sort
    > of) "because Christ, capable and efficient natural causes." The claims of a
    > theology of
    > the crucified should be given (at least) serious attention because (I argue)
    > of its
    > fruitfulness is grounding the comprehensibility of the natural world and
    > other aspects
    > of our experience. I presented this argument in a little more detail in
    > "Cross-Based
    > Apologetics for a Scientific Millennium," also in Perspectives and available
    > via the asa
    > website.
    > (I don't mean to just blow you off with a list of references. But the
    > things
    > I've published will give you a more coherent idea of the arguments than I
    > would if I
    > tried to pound out a quick summary here.)
    > Shalom,
    > George

    Because George sometimes is criticized for his use of the "theology of the
    cross" as being just too, too Lutheran, I thought I'd point out that evangelical
    Methodist theologian Alan Padgett has recently published an article
    advocating the use of the theologia crucis for the science/faith dialogue. See his
    "Crucified Creator: The God of Evolution and Luther's Theology of the Cross" in
    Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 2003, v. 42, p. 300-304.

    As Padgett put it, "Luther is not the only, or even the first, theologian of
    the cross. But his presentation is powerful and central in Christian history,
    and deserves serious engagement."

    Padgett also has a new book out, which presumably expands on this article. I
    haven't seen it yet, but the title is Science and the Study of God (2003,

    Karl V. Evans

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 18:46:21 EDT