Re: The state of suburban theology

From: <>
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 09:23:17 EDT

> & the
> process view is itself (as some of Whitehead's remarks indicate) inspired
> part by the picture of kenosis. Where the difference between these views
> becomes critical is, I think, with theodicy - & there I suspect that
> & I will continue to differ.

Yes, I presume so. For me, theologically preserving the possibility of
coercive supernatural action has far too high a price tag.


Doug's comment:
Howard, I'm not very well read in this area (although I have begun with
some John Polkinghorne material in the last several months), but does it
work if one allows for "coercive" supernatural action only for revelatory
purposes? For example, the miracles of Jesus were never for the purpose of
eliminating leprosy or giving the universal cure for epilepsy or to prevent
some major natural disaster or evil pogram. Their function (even in cases
where he did physically heal people supernaturally) was as signs of his
identity and message (revelation). Even in the resurrection of Jesus (an
obviously coercive, supernatural) event, its effect (saving life) is not
attributed to everyone by force; it must by accepted by each
person/community. In other words, its mode of action in Creation is
persuasive, not coercive.

I apologize if I am mixing metaphors.

Received on Tue Jun 15 09:40:33 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 15 2004 - 09:40:33 EDT